brian@radio.astro.toronto.edu (Brian Glendenning) (08/28/88)
In article <1988Aug26.162706.22671@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes: > >It's been done, it works well, and it's readily available: C++. Does C++ solve the oft-mentioned problems with C for numerical work? Are vectorizing C++ compilers available on "crunching" machines, e.g. Cray, Convex and Alliant? (In fact, are vectorizing _C_ compilers available for the latter two)? Do C and C++ compilers generally give about the same level of optimization, i.e. are C compilers much more mature than C++ compilers. -- Brian Glendenning INTERNET - brian@radio.astro.toronto.edu Radio Astronomy, U. Toronto UUCP - {uunet,pyramid}!utai!radio!brian +1 (416) 978-5558 BITNET - glendenn@utorphys.bitnet
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/28/88)
In article <1203@radio.toronto.edu> brian@radio.astro.toronto.edu (Brian Glendenning) writes: >Does C++ solve the oft-mentioned problems with C for numerical work? Probably not completely, although its extensibility makes it better than C (for example, defining new kinds of numbers is simple). >Are >vectorizing C++ compilers available on "crunching" machines, e.g. Cray, Convex >and Alliant? (In fact, are vectorizing _C_ compilers available for the latter >two)? The answer is probably "not yet". However, the same comment would apply to any other proposed solution to the problems. The language itself is pretty much right; getting the implementations right is important, but is a separate problem. >Do C and C++ compilers generally give about the same level of optimization, >i.e. are C compilers much more mature than C++ compilers. Most existing C++ implementations are based on C compilers to some degree, so they're pretty much comparable. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu