4 ms·
you're saying I should port all my code just because the ui is more user-friendly? what about performance, options, special warnings, builtins, and everything e
by eordano 17y ago
you're saying I should port all my code just because the ui is more user-friendly? what about performance, options, special warnings, builtins, and everything else?
I've been using gcc for a while now, and every time I use it I found a new feature. It's rock solid and had never let me down.
- steveklabnik 17y agoYou shouldn't need to port your code; C is C, right? Or do you use a lot of gcc extensions?
- ssp 17y agoClang is compatible with the most used GCC extensions. See this: http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#gcccompat http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#gcccompat
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- steveklabnik 17y agoEven better!
- pgbovine 17y agojust because the ui is more user-friendly? Those better warnings aren't just due to a simple UI patch ... clang is doing better and deeper static analysis than gcc in order to even be able to produce those more intelligent warnings.
- ahn 17y agogcc with the dehydra plugin is doing better and deeper static analysis than clang.
- Zev 17y agoDoesn't dehydra do static analysis for C++ code? In which case, of course it would do better then clang; clang doesn't even claim to have complete c++ support yet.
- ssp 17y agoThere is nothing deep about these warnings. It would likely be really, really simple to add them to gcc.
- upinsmoke 17y agowow, just wow. how about read what clang actually is before posting?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- ramchip 17y agoSeriously? How can a comment this misguided be upvoted so high?