[cfe-dev] Clang comparison page

[Chris Lattner]

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:
>> http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html
>>
>> 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  
allows it
        to map from a source location in the AST to the original  
position before
        preprocessing, providing it better support for static analysis  
and
        refactoring.  If you are interested, please see the Pork  
page.</p>

 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?

-Chris