[cfe-dev] clang comparison webpage
richard at metafoo.co.uk
Sun Dec 8 23:12:37 PST 2013
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mouse <mouse at rodents-montreal.org> wrote:
> 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.)
> 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.
Thanks for the suggestion; I've updated the comparison to note that GCC
provides some language extensions that Clang does not (and vice versa).
Please let us know if there's anything else you think should be adjusted in
the comparison page; I also spotted another couple of places where it was
out of date (listing Clang advantages in areas where GCC has caught up). We
should probably also weaken some of our claims about diagnostics, since GCC
4.9 has got a lot better in that area.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev