[cfe-dev] Command line compiler options

Edward Diener eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.com
Wed Jun 17 07:20:03 PDT 2015

On 6/16/2015 11:43 PM, Nikola Smiljanic wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Edward Diener
> <eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.com
> <mailto:eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.com>> wrote:
>     I would suggest that clang actually spend some time telling
>     programmers how to use their product.
> If only the compiler could document itself :)
> On a more serious note, patches in this area are more than welcome. It
> took me some time to realize this, but people working on clang are
> mostly employed by companies that want them to work on whatever's
> important to them. This means that those people know exactly how to use
> the compiler. If you're buying a product based on clang then you can
> request the company that's selling it to provide documentation. But for
> you, me and everyone else using the open source compiler it means that
> anything we see missing we'll have to do ourselves or just wait until
> someone gets to it, if they do. I'm sure you'll find out the list of
> possible values for -std switch, why not contribute a patch documenting
> them once you do?

I am not a clang contributor. I do use clang when testing Boost 
libraries and I am appreciative of the clang support I get here.

> On a personal note, I find your tone unacceptable if you expect a
> productive discussion.

My "humor" was borne out of frustration. I need to know not only about 
the latest clang, but previous versions, because Boost supports many 
versions of many compilers in most of its libraries. I understand that 
clang developers work on the compiler itself and that documentation gets 
overlooked. But no matter how good the compiler is, if an end-user has a 
hard time using it because documentation is poor or entirely lacking in 
some areas, how much good will the product be to end-users ?

> I understand your frustration as I've been there
> many times but you have to understand that people in this community are
> doing their best and are aware of shortcomings, which is why patches are
> more than welcome.

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list