compiling lame - msvc vs icl

2003-10-06 18:28:41

i have compiled lame 3.93.1 with msvc .net 2002. i have modified the makefile that comes with lame and added some options to make it faster.

i haven't notified any speed difference beetween my build and the one you can download from rarewares (icl compile, also 3.93.1). and icl compile is much larger (i have upx-ed my compile).

could someone tell me why should i use icl instead of msvc.

compiling lame - msvc vs icl

Reply #1 – 2003-10-06 19:07:21

hi, i started this poll with fearnot account (my friend's).

i forgot to say that i have decompressed the lame.exe and lame_enc.dll that come compressed with upx (from rarewares) and they were much much larger then mine

size of my binaries    upx-ed      normal
lame.exe                  149 KB        308 KB
lame_enc.dll            112 KB        216 KB

size of rarewares' binaries    upx-ed          normal
lame.exe                            181 KB          516 KB
lame_enc.dll                        132 KB          372 KB

why does icl produce so larger code?

compiling lame - msvc vs icl

Reply #2 – 2003-10-06 19:45:04

This has been discussed several times before. However, the short answer is that for 3.90.2 and 3.90.3, as successor, the original tuning, done by Dibrom, was based on compiles using ICL4.5. Therefore, for those versions of LAME, at least, ICL4.5 compiles are considered the correct versions to use. Since there have been library changes since then, the compiler may be less critical. However, you will find differences in the files encoded by executables compiled with different compilers. Which one is best? Well, aside from the versions mentioned above, that's really up to you and your ears to decide, isn't it?

compiling lame - msvc vs icl

Reply #3 – 2003-10-08 04:57:17

i think that icl is better for  Intel's CPU.