<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic glibc distributed with the in Software Archive</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/How-was-libc-compiled/m-p/946708#M18442</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;glibc distributed with the MPSS was compiled with GCC. The most important flag that used was -O2. Are you seeing slow downs compared to Intel Xeon processors?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:11:35 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Sumedh_N_Intel</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-07-16T13:11:35Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>How was libc compiled ?</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/How-was-libc-compiled/m-p/946707#M18441</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Does anyone know compilation details of glibc distributed with mpss ?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Was icc used and with what flags ?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am seeing particularly slow execution of functions like strtod, fprintf, malloc, etc.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:36:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/How-was-libc-compiled/m-p/946707#M18441</guid>
      <dc:creator>Vladimir_Dergachev</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-07-10T23:36:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>glibc distributed with the</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/How-was-libc-compiled/m-p/946708#M18442</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;glibc distributed with the MPSS was compiled with GCC. The most important flag that used was -O2. Are you seeing slow downs compared to Intel Xeon processors?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:11:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/How-was-libc-compiled/m-p/946708#M18442</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sumedh_N_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-07-16T13:11:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Yes. So far the best solution</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/How-was-libc-compiled/m-p/946709#M18443</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes. So far the best solution is to rewrite the code to avoid using libc functions. This unfortunately implies using custom memory allocation pool instead of new/delete..&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have tried to compile glibc and uClibc with intel compiler, but ran into problems. Seems like at least parts of the code use assembler inlines, and, perhaps, gnu assembler syntax.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In theory it should be possible to recompile only parts of C library with Intel compiler, but I have not tried that yet.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:09:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/How-was-libc-compiled/m-p/946709#M18443</guid>
      <dc:creator>Vladimir_Dergachev</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-07-16T19:09:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

