3 ms·
> they still lagged gcc Isn't the "they" in this thread gcc, or did I misread something?
by davidcuddeback 9y ago
> they still lagged gcc
Isn't the "they" in this thread gcc, or did I misread something?
- ajross 9y agoI took "clang/llvm may be reckless, but they're fast and have UBsan", to which I replied "gcc is still faster".
- davidcuddeback 9y agoOh, I thought the GP was accusing GCC devs of reckless optimizations. But UBSan is a clang project, so maybe you're interpretation makes more sense. Very confusing thread. :)
- wyldfire 9y agoSorry, I should've been more explicit when I responded to the original clang vs gcc comment. Note that UBSan is (mostly? totally? originally?) a Google project and it's been ported to both clang and gcc.
- skgoa 9y agoI mean, if you use GCC does recklessly optimize away (some) security/safety code. This is one of the reasons why we don't use it for code we ship. I work in a safety-conscious industry, where an overeager compiler can literally kill people.