On 11 April 2012 21:00, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 11 April 2012 18:24, Xinliang David Li wrote: >>> >>> Yes, GCC is still in some comfortable zones such as generated code >>> quality, performance, etc, but the advantage and gap is quickly >>> reducing (e.g, LLVM is the default compiler in Xcode) -- and other >>> advantages in LLVM (will soon) outweigh its disadvantages. It has a >>> very modern frontend Clang which is *very* attractive to application >>> developers (better diagnostics, better IDE integration, easier to >> ... >> >> GCC's diagnostics have got a lot better recently. >> > > Proof? A similar page from gcc would be more helpful here.
It's all in bugzilla. Look for Nathan Froyd's checkins e.g. regarding missing semi-colons after class declarations and reasons for overload resolution failure and template argument deduction failures. And Manu's work on many diagnostic issues includes the brand new caret diagnostics. I don't need proof, I see the benefits every day. Those who need convincing should feel free to do the comparisons themselves :-) I can provide testcases for which G++ produces far superior results to clang++. >> The http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html page compares clang's >> diagnostics to GCC 4.2, which was outdated long before that page was >> written. >> >> It doesn't help GCC's cause when people keep repeating that outdated info :-) > > Well -- because there is no up-to-date information for people to look at :(. I get my views on their relative merits from actually using GCC and clang, not from out of date webpages.
