[cfe-dev] AST processing toolbox

Sebastian Redl sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at
Sat Jun 13 09:35:30 PDT 2009

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:33:42 -0400, Brian Allison
<brian.w.allison at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:
>> That said, there is an ongoing discussion on which C++ features we
>> should actually use in LLVM/Clang.  At the end of the day, not
>> everyone who contributes to LLVM/Clang is a C++ guru, and using
>> esoteric C++ features may actually be more of a detriment than a
>> blessing as it may scare off potential contributors.  So when we look
>> at whether or not to pull in library X or language feature Y into the
>> code base, we need to consider the tradeoffs both in terms of
>> technical benefits (which may be marginal) versus (a) the
>> approachability and readability of the code base and (b) the
>> portability of the code base.  We aren't luddites, however, as we do
>> indeed use some of the more "specialized" features of C++ in LLVM/
>> Clang, but they are buried deep in the code and help provide
>> fundamental infrastructure instead of being used as part of the basic
>> APIs.
>  So then, clang isn't going to be a drop-in replacement for g++ until
> there are "enough" other compilers that implement the more
> esoteric parts of C++?

What do the requirements on the Clang codebase have to do with its
suitability as a GCC drop-in replacement? I think you're misunderstanding
something here.


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list