>Intel already handed icc + performace libs to apple, but from my
>experience icc doesn't create any faster code then gcc. Is there
>any *recent* benchmark that shows otherwise?
Define "recent".

>I know that heavy math code is likely to perform better on icc but
>this is rather uninteresting to general audience.
In general, the choice of compiler is unimportant for the performance of
most user-bound programs. I doubt KDE would run much faster if
compiled
with ICC, for example.
However, for codecs, image processing, and other math-intensive
operations, Intel generally produces faster code, though
not always. This isn't just a matter of floating-point generation --
Intel's vectorizer gives their compiler a distinct advantage over GCC,
although I expect GCC to catch up in this regard.
Rather than speculate about Apple, it would be better to find more
funding for GCC development. I know that some people are working on
this.
I don't think you should worry about this. Because:
a) Apple just started the transition to PowerPC64. (A politically correct
statement would be that Apple just stopped the transition to PowerPC32). If
they were still working on that (large parts of SX still aren't 64-bit), the
programmers at Apple would probably be very annoyed, considering that
pretty much everything (exceptions: Darwin, iTunes, AppleWorks, QuickTime)
was written for the PowerPC.
b) It's unlikely that _every_ Mac software company would port all of there
programs to the x86, more or less Apple themselves.
c) Some existing work (e.g. BootX) would have to be completly trashed or
rewritten from scratch.
d) Most of us don't want to waste there money on a new Mac just because
there switching to x86.
In summary, we shouldn't worry about this, because 75% of what Apple is
planning to do is a bad idea for them.
Samuel Lauber