I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype.
This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I
haven't followed the data much since.
http://clang.llvm.org/performance-2008-10-31.html
Now imagine having to rebuild projects constantly during your dev cycle. The
time savings is going to add up quick.
still not read my mail where i actually compared it in real. or don't
want?
I really don't care about cool graphs but at facts for me as a USER (not
developer) of C compiler.
And the facts are: Lots of worktime were spent to make new C compiler from
scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger, working at similar
speed and producing similar code to GCC that is already considered bloat.
Not something to be proud about.
That's truth. and truth is the only thing i do care about. I leave hype
and propaganda and cool graphic bars that shows a really not important
part of C compiler performance - code parsing and generating unoptimized
code (-O0).
The truth is sad. Starting from fresh and not being able to beat 25-year
old bloated gcc is just funny.
That's my view - as a final "consumer", not developer. My view is that
bloatware is replaced by another bloatware, which - because of it's young
age - have greater future potential of bloat than GCC.
This tens or hundreds of thousands of work-hours could be spent far better
by getting latest gcc available on GPLv2 licence and start from there,
just improving it.
GNU communist licence for C compiler is not bad at all (contrary to other
software).
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
