[cfe-dev] libclang, someday?

[Cédric Venet]

> 
> Based on a loose “feeling” from trying it on my 1.25GHz G4, I'd say
> ccc about twice as slow as using clang directly.

It seems strange, but I never used ccc. The overhead of the script should be
small, except if your source file are very small...

> I'm not familiar with
> llvmc2, I'm afraid.

llvm\tools\llvmc2

there is a start of configuration for clang in examples, which would need to
be expended.

> 
> Besides, is a reason for the main clang executable to be so
> incompatible? Of the many things clang is, one is a C/Objective-C
> compiler. Having one executable, included with clang and installed by
> default, that works as a drop in replacement for gcc, cc or another C-
> compiler is very useful indeed. For one thing, it could allow the many
> Autoconf/Automake/Make/configure based projects to easily try clang
> and report any bugs they find.

This executable can be build by configuring llvmc2. See the doc and 
http://llvm.org/devmtg/2008-08/Korobeynikov_LLVMC2-CompilerDriver.pdf


> 
> In this regard, accepting and ignoring -O* is crucial, as most other C
> compiler accept them. It's even somewhat standardised and required for
> the UNIX c99 executable. [1] Likewise, having to use a separate linker
> or filter out -Wall is annoying. It would be very nice if the goal of
> source-level compatibility with GCC was extended to also include
> invocation and supported flags.
> 

Clang is only a frontend, not comparable to gcc. The driver llvmc should be
compatible and can be easily be made so. But I think no one took the time
yet.

Regards,

Cédric