I've always taken for granted the compiler I used -- until I read this
thread. I've used buggy compilers before, such as fxc. I was even
greatly affected by a bug in gcc and Apple. Although it caused me to
contentedly switch to Microsoft, I still did not acknowledge my
compiler's performance.
On 7/31/2013 3:19 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
Yet none of them dares to provide a long time support version.
This surprised and shocked me. For an unknown reason, I expected this
of gcc.
As for clang/llvm my opinion is simple: If the effort to switch
compilers is equally or exceedingly rewarded then it is a valuable endeavor.
On 7/29/2013 12:48 PM, h...@riseup.net wrote:
LLVM/Clang
* BSD license - we're not stuck with the old GCC crap
* The code is cleaner
* Lack of linuxisms, better follows the standars
* Much better error handling
* Building the compiller itself is easier
I this case, I feel there's only novel reward. The question arises,
should we be dealing with this subject proactively or reactively?
