[cfe-dev] clang comparison webpage
ofv at wanadoo.es
Sun Dec 8 18:17:17 PST 2013
Mouse <mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG> writes:
> http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html compares clang versus three other
> compilers, one of them gcc, and invites mail to cfe-dev "if you think
> some characterization is unfair here".
> But the comparison to gcc leaves off the major reason clang is a
> complete nonstarter for me: lack of support for gcc extensions. (In my
> case nested function support is the biggest one; clang appears to be
> under the impression that they are "infrequently used", which, true or
> not in general, is not true of my code.)
Is it feasible for you to use lambdas instead of nested functions?
> Not that it's a screaming big deal. But I do think it's at least
> somewhat unfair to gcc to fail to at least mention clang's lack of
> support for some of gcc's extensions when comparing the two.
If you are comparing C/C++ compilers you base the comparison on
universal goals such as standards compliance, code quality, etc. I would
never assume that compiler A is a drop-in replacement for compiler B wrt
Sure, it would be nice to support every GCC extension, but the time
invested on implementing those extensions would slow-down the
development of the features that makes Clang so attractive as a C++
compiler on every other aspect.
More information about the cfe-dev