[Qt-creator] Is MSVC on Windows supported?

[Harri Pasanen]

On 09/06/2012 01:40 PM, Peter Pearson wrote:
> On 06/09/12 12:16, Harri Pasanen wrote:
>
>> What I took away from is that you many not want to use icc (Intel) if
>> you plan to run on AMD, as the generated code looks for the processor
>> brand, not the supported instruction set.   It does not always matter,
>> but in some cases it might.
> Not since 12.0.
>
> In fact, the graphs (and my own experience with it) prove that.
>
> On AMD, ICC was often faster than the other two compilers...

I read the conclusion again, bit more carefully:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/847-16/conclusion.html
(bad google translate here: http://bit.ly/Opnh7q )

Basically it says that for the tested versions of the compilers icc is 
often fastest for both Intel and AMD, but it could be perhaps 15% faster 
still for AMD if it wanted.

It does compare the processor brand, based on the assembly in the 
article which I presume is from the version tested,
Intel C++ Compiler XE 12.0u5

Apparently due to some hand wrangling with FCC they've added a 
disclaimer to the docs to the effect that optimisations may work better 
on Intel, up to user to test, etc.

So presumably if gcc 4.7 were equivalent to icc on Intel, it would 
probably be better than icc on AMD.



Harri

PS. I'm on linux, running gcc on core i7, so I don't have a horse in 
this race, just curious.