| |||||||||||||
Distributions looking at LLVMDistributions looking at LLVMPosted Mar 30, 2012 16:35 UTC (Fri) by mlopezibanez (guest, #66088)In reply to: Distributions looking at LLVM by Yorick Parent article: Distributions looking at LLVM
My own experience is quite the opposite - Clang's diagnostics are both more useful and precise, and there are also more warnings about potential mistakes. Perhaps you used an old version?I would encourage you and everybody else to report bugs for GCC diagnostics that you find to be worse than Clang's. GCC diagnostics have improved a LOT in the last few releases. In the order of hundreds of patches and probably close to a hundred bugs fixed per release. Fortunately, many issues are quite trivial, and they can be fixed by changing one line. Unfortunately, the entry barrier for submitting a one-line patch is so huge that very few external contributors ever suggest such patches. Unfortunately x 2, some issues are not so easy to solve and there are some known limitations of GCC diagnostics that makes it look worse than Clang. Overcoming these limitations does not seem to be a priority to GCC maintainers. It is true that despite the bitching in blogs and forums about how awful GCC diagnostics are, the developers don't actually see that many reports about it. But I think if enough people reported the problems that they find, something will eventually be done about it.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||