[cfe-dev] RFC: Clang driver redesign

[Clark Gaebel]

What's wrong with having a gcc compatibility layer for the driver which
just translates from one option set to the other. I'm thinking of something
like:

clang-gcc [gcc options]
clang-g++ [g++ options]

clang [clang options]
clang++ [clang++ options]

If anything, the clang-gcc and clang-g++ could just be shell script
wrappers around clang.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Jens Ayton <mailing-lists.jens at ayton.se>wrote:

> On Nov 8, 2011, at 09:57, Miles Bader wrote:
> >
> > Clang's gcc-compatible options (and extensions) are one of its best
> > features, from a user point of view.  All one's tweaking worked out
> > (sometimes painfully) for gcc pretty much just magically works with
> > clang!  This is really incredibly refreshing, and makes clang look
> > good ("wow, they actually thought about the users!").
>
> The flipside is that it is impossible to even consider a situation where
> getting things to work doesn’t involve painful tweaking. Calling this
> “thinking about the users” smacks of Stockholm syndrome.
>
>
> --
> Jens Ayton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20111108/c50b22c4/attachment.html>