Frequently Asked Questions
Why not use GNU's gcc/g++ instead of Intel compilers?
Good question. When I started working on the book around 2010, my initial choice was gcc/g++. I switched to Intel for two main reasons. First, around 2010, the Intel compilers were optimizing loops better. However, I don't believe Intel optimizes loops (such as in dense matrix multiplication or transpose) better than gcc/g++ any more. The new YMM/ZMM registers have raised the difficulty of optimization considerably, and neither compiler does a good job on recent machines with YMM/ZMM registers in 2017.
Second, the advanced computing sites I used, ARC at Michigan and TACC at Texas, defaulted to Intel compilers. In addition, the Intel compilers make it very easy to link Intel's own Math Kernel Library. The Intel compilers are also free for students.
Should I code in assembly?
In 2010, I would have answered no most of the time. However, the situation today is more complicated. Even the best C/C++ compilers don't do a decent job with the new YMM/ZMM registers, and if Intel keeps changing its architectures to better compete with GPUs, it may be difficult for compilers to catch up. It is also a matter of how willing Intel is to invest in compiler technology. There is a much stronger case for coding in assembly today.
I am getting very different timings. Is something wrong?
No. Different timings are to be expected. For example, if you run the Leibniz programs from here, you will get different numbers. The only way to resolve this matter is to look at the instruction stream generated, a point that is emphasized in the discussion.
In the discussion of matrix multiplication, it is noted that the same Intel compiler does a much better job on the older SSE2 than the newer AVX2 for multIJKX(). Loop optimizations in the newer Intel compilers are not as sophisticated as they used to be.