Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> writes: > On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >> Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and >>> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't >>> see yet how GCC developers can consider either more beneficial than >>> the other. >> >> It seems to me that at the present moment LLVM's frontends are better >> than GCC's, and GCC's backends are better than LLVM's. By this I mean >> specifically that LLVM's frontends generate better diagnostics, whereas >> GCC's backends generate code that has better runtime performance. (LLVM >> also appears to run faster, which is a good feature but not in my mind a >> determining one.) Therefore, I see a clear benefit to clang->gcc, but I >> do not see a clear benefit to gcc->llvm. This comment is of course >> entirely independent of the licensing issues. > > I think you are again talking about user benefits.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing. What is the difference between a benefit to users of gcc and a benefit to gcc itself? > You don't see a > (user) benefit in gcc->llvm because you perhaps do not use the > features that LLVM has and GCC doesn't. But users of gcc->llvm surely > see a large benefit if people have spent so much effort working on it, > first as a patched gcc and now as a plugin. I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general understanding is that clang C++ support is not yet complete, so there is a benefit there, but only a temporary one. I don't see a real benefit going forward. > But I am talking about benefits to GCC. Do you see any > benefit/downside on adding code to GCC to enable a plugin that > implements clang->gcc? Since for me benefits to users of gcc are pretty much the same as benefits to gcc, yes, I see a benefit. Ian
