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 diagnostics to GCC 4.2, which was outdated long before that page was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 It doesn't help GCC's cause when people keep repeating that outdated info :-)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clang, not from out of date webpages.

Reply via email to