| |||||||||||||
GCC and static analysisGCC and static analysisPosted May 3, 2012 8:06 UTC (Thu) by mlopezibanez (guest, #66088)In reply to: GCC and static analysis by stevenb Parent article: GCC and static analysis
Blaming Google instead of reflecting on what GCC devs could have done to avoid this situation seems to be a bad strategy for keeping Google as a contributor to GCC.
LLVM is a much more welcoming environment than GCC. See the reaction to essentially the same patch:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu/msg30...
The result? Clang has this warning, GCC doesn't. I think it is easy to find many examples like this.
Improving Clang/LLVM is relatively easy. Working on GCC requires incredibly amounts of knowledge, motivation, persistence and social maneuvering to get patches reviewed and approved.
One of the points that Delesley made is that the code was integrated into trunk immediately in LLVM, whereas in GCC it was languishing in a branch that would take super-human persistence during several months to get reviewed and accepted.
In fact, it is likely that Google will work less closely with GCC, as more of their engineers rely on LLVM.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||