[cfe-commits] correct comparisons page

[Chris Lattner]

done.

On Sep 25, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:

> The comparisons page still needs to be updated on this.
>
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 04:45:04PM +0200, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>> Prototypes with a * have since been fixed,
>> http://marc.info/?l=pcc-commit-list&m=125215185828082&w=2
>>
>> Additionally it would nice if non specific/referenced claims
>> such as "very inefficient code" could at least be qualified.
>>
>> And the GCC pro of
>> "does not require a C++ compiler to build it" should likely
>> be added to the PCC section, which is rather noticeable
>> when X86ISelDAGToDAG starts eating up 700MB or so of memory
>> when being compiled with gcc.
>>
>> In similiar taste would be "does not require GNU make to build"
>> and "does not require GNU grep to run regressions", though
>> the later does not apply to clang but rather llvm "make check".
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:35:17AM +0200, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>>> Prototypes using a VLA with * as the size apparently don't work when
>>> tested here.
>>> And I don't have a system tgmath.h here.
>>>
>>> Apart from that at least,
>>>
>>> inline keyword/semantics
>>> VLA (not prototypes with * for size ?)
>>> complex numbers, _Complex and _Imaginary types
>>> _Bool type
>>> ability to use abstract declarators everywhere allowed
>>> designated initialisers
>>> mixed type declarations/logic
>>> type declaration in for loop
>>> variadic macros
>>> multiple type qualifiers
>>> // comment
>>> restrict qualifier
>>> compound literals
>>>
>>> Many GCC extensions are supported such as inline assembly format/ 
>>> constraints,
>>> typeof, case ranges, attribute() etc as well.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:25:19PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>> What parts of c99 does it support? Is it comperable to gccs  
>>>> support?
>>>> For example, does it support VLAs fully, including arrays with *  
>>>> as the
>>>> size, tgmath.h, complex, etc?
>>>>
>>>> -Chris
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:34 AM, Jonathan Gray <jsg at goblin.cx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> PCC has supported C99 for a while now, so this statement
>>>>> should be removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Index: comparison.html
>>>>> = 
>>>>> ==================================================================
>>>>> --- comparison.html    (revision 80998)
>>>>> +++ comparison.html    (working copy)
>>>>> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@
>>>>>    <ul>
>>>>>    <li>PCC dates from the 1970's and has been dormant for most of
>>>>> that time.
>>>>>        The clang + llvm communities are very active.</li>
>>>>> -    <li>PCC doesn't support C99, Objective-C, and doesn't aim to
>>>>> support
>>>>> +    <li>PCC doesn't support Objective-C, and doesn't aim to  
>>>>> support
>>>>>        C++.</li>
>>>>>    <li>PCC's code generation is very limited compared to LLVM.  It
>>>>> produces very
>>>>>        inefficient code and does not support many important
>>>>> targets.</li>