3 ms·
Three facts: 1: clang was significantly worse when Apple removed GCC support, 2: clang is still significantly worse than GCC, and 3: it's because of Google's in
by nwallin 7y ago
Three facts: 1: clang was significantly worse when Apple removed GCC support, 2: clang is still significantly worse than GCC, and 3: it's because of Google's investment, not Apple's, that we can think of clang as a "in the same stadium" competitor to GCC that makes Apple's removal of GCC surprising.
Any pair of these wouldn't be surprising. Apple is investing in an unproven technology, ok fine. But the congruence of these three facts is surprising. Apple is investing in a worse technology and also relies entirely on Google to improve that technology for them. Blows my mind.
- detaro 7y ago> clang is still significantly worse than GCC On what basis is that a "fact" without further context? I'd say that very much depends on what you consider or measure.
- CoolGuySteve 7y agoThe compile times are much longer and the generated code is usually slower except for autovectorized code. I've spent a lot of time testing both clang and gcc, and right now the only part of clang I use regularly is the static analyzer in my continuous integration. For C++ in particular, the compile times are 2-3 times as long. It's unbelievable how slow it is.
- X-Istence 7y ago> 2: clang is still significantly worse than GCC Do you have any sources/information to back that statement up?
- bjoli 7y agoAnecdote from someone who's not the parent: I have had issues with C++ compile times in Mac OS X for a long time. GCC compiles many things in almost half the time.
- c256 7y agoAt least in the past, Apple has had significant contributions to LLVM. These days, that might be limited to the Swift stack.