[cfe-dev] Clang vs Other Open Source Compilers

[Daniel Dunbar]

2010/9/15 "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>:
> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Dave Yost wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, EDG is commercial, but licensees do get full source.
>>>
>>> The Clang comparison page
>>> <http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html> functions as a technical
>>> orientation to Clang, giving insight into differences in approach,
>>> interfacing, and completeness among major compilers. Another
>>> important function of the comparison is to help people considering
>>> switching from some other compiler (commercial or not) to Clang.
>>>
>>> These functions would be better served if EDG were included in the
>>> comparison.
>>>
>>> I suggest that the title of the comparison page should be changed to
>>> "Clang vs Other Compilers"
>>>
>>> The section for each compiler can mention the licensing terms.
>>
>> Frankly, I don't see any benefit to this. Commercial customers who
>> have the means to license a commercial front end are going to do a far
>> more in-depth analysis of the capabilities of the various front ends
>> (both free and otherwise) than the "biased" analysis we put up on our
>> web page. At best, this page provides a list of some of Clang's
>> advantages/disadvantages that they can weigh against a commercial
>> vendor's claims.
>>
>> It's worth describing Clang's advantages and disadvantages relative to
>> other open-source compilers because that's a completely different
>> market, where we're mainly competing for mindshare among volunteers
>> who want to do a little compiler hacking or want to build open-source
>> tools on top of a front-end, and for whom "open source" is the
>> first-order bit.
> I wonder consider all consumers of the clang front-end to care about
> open source as their #1 order of business..  (This is my view and please
> feel free to ignore it..)
>
> If I have time and interest we'll at some point run and report the
> results of..

I would be very interested to hear the results, if you get the time
and interest. :)

 - Daniel

>
> C:
>  Plum Hall
>     Capacity
>     expr
>     expr_95
>     expr_98
>  Perennial C
>     CVSA_AMEN
>     CVSA_C90
>     CVSA_C99
> C++
>  Perennial C++
>     CCVS_P0
>     CCVS_P1
>     CCVS_P2
>     CCVS_P3_4
>     CCVS_P6_7
>
> This will hopefully give a pretty good indication about where the
> front-end stands in terms of conformance.. (I realize clang wasn't
> written with C++03 in mind and our C++ suite may not give the best
> coverage)..  I can't predict the future, but I do wonder what the future
> business model of EDG will be..
>
>
> Best,
>
> ./C
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>