> This is driven by programmers' insatiable thirst for performance. Compiler writers are constantly judged on benchmarks, and the only way to squeeze that last flop out of a piece of code is to take the specification to its extreme.
Really? I've seen people switch between competing compilers for licensing reasons, platform support, features---but benchmark performance? Maybe blog posts suggesting that a new compiler wasn't ready.
It might not be true now because LLVM and GCC can generally put a commercial compiler 6 feet under, but if you're paying for a compiler you'd definitely want to choose the one that delivers the best performance (Money being no object)
As Patrick mentions, ICC generates code that doesn't follow IEEE-754: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20437375 (I should have mentioned I was talking about that rather than the C standard).
IME, benchmarks aren't enough of an impetus to move between compilers, but are often a not-insignificant piece of what's considered when moving is otherwise motivated.
Really? I've seen people switch between competing compilers for licensing reasons, platform support, features---but benchmark performance? Maybe blog posts suggesting that a new compiler wasn't ready.
Compiler writers judge themselves on benchmarks.