[cfe-dev] Clang comparison page
clattner at apple.com
Mon Dec 10 20:46:17 PST 2007
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Taras Glek wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I whipped up this page to help answer some commonly asked
>> questions about how clang compares to other compilers:
>> Comparisons like this are often very sensitive so please let me
>> know if I am saying anything unfair/non-objective, or am
>> forgetting anything.
> Hi Chris,
> I think this is a fairly fair comparison. Would you mind mentioning
> my oink fork, pork? It addresses some of the shortcomings that you
> mentioned. The main differences between oink and pork are that
> * Integrates with MCPP to allow to "accurately map from a source
> location in the AST to the original position before preprocessing.".
> Several Mozilla-specific refactoring tools are provided
> * Is actively developed (some full-time developers)
> * Provides a scriptable static analysis tool, Dehydra
Sure, since Pork is still evolving, I won't go into too much detail.
How about including this at the end:
<p>Note that there is a fork of Elsa known as "Pork". It
addresses some of
these shortcomings by loosly integrating a preprocessor. This
to map from a source location in the AST to the original
preprocessing, providing it better support for static analysis
refactoring. If you are interested, please see the Pork
From your blog, my understanding is that the preprocessor really
isn't integrated: it emits a .i file and a log of expansion
information (embedded into the source as comments?) which is then
parsed by Elsa. This is right?
More information about the cfe-dev