[cfe-dev] Clang comparison page

Chris Lattner 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:
>> 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  
        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 mailing list