Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> writes: >> And GCC usually has better diagnostic than clang except in those few >> areas which it does not (those some might say those areas are the most >> important ones). > > No. clang's diagnostics for C++ are much much better than GCC's. > Obviously GCC's can improve, but today clang's are much better.
Meh. Clang's diagnostics are often pretty good, and it's rightly lauded for that, but the "OMG clang totally murders gcc for diagnostics!" meme (which seems to be staple of clang's unfortunately large fanboi contingent) is an exaggeration. Clang's diagnostics are not _that_ good, gcc's are [currently] not that bad, and the situations where the difference is the most noticeable tend to be obscure. (remember: Only Henry Spencer can say "No." and really get away with it...) -miles -- Non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
