[cfe-dev] clang comparison webpage

Mouse mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG
Mon Dec 9 11:33:02 PST 2013

> Right.  Early on, it just wasn?t important.  Beyond that, I still think that$

As for trampolines, that's a reason to dislike gcc's implementation
(the ABI, if you will); it's not a reason to dislike the API, the
programmer-visible form they take.

As for error recovery, perhaps I'm just an outlier in this respect, but
it seems to me that they're no different from "if" or "for" in that
respect - IOW, even to the extent that's true, I don't see that as
enough of a problem to justify not implementing them.  (Of course, the
extent "justify" is really an appropriate verb there is debatable....)

> That said, if someone were motivated to implement this extension (or a subse$

For my purposes, I don't much care if it takes a command-line option to
enable them - I already throw a wrapper script around the compiler
anyway, to deal with the pile of gcc variants, or more precisely te
correct flag cluster to get the warnings I want, I'm faced with.

If that's a way of suggesting I should be the "someone"?  That
certainly makes sense, but the activation energy is high enough it's
unlikely to happen soon, especially since there is another extension I
use moderately heavily which is actually my own, so switching to clang
would mean getting my head around its internals enough to add it there,
a significantly higher effort than just getting it to build.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list