The GCC Empire Strikes back

Hi all,

In case anyone haven't read this article yey, here is a link:

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison

It claims that GCC 4.8 has better diagnostics than Clang for some cases.

In case anyone haven't read this article yey, here is a link:

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison

It claims that GCC 4.8 has better diagnostics than Clang for some cases.

Yep, most of those deficiencies have already been addressed in Clang
(in part because of the wiki page pointing them out, to be fair) &
will show up in the 3.2 release. Anyone who wants to rerun their
comparison & suggest an edit to GCC's wiki page and/or another pass
over Clang's "Diagnostic Comparison" page to show off some of the new
hotness would be most welcome.

- David

I consider this a testament to Clang that its diagnostics were good enough to make diagnostics a priority for other compilers. If the end result of this is that all compilers have good diagnostics, I consider that a victory. (And it's always good to have competition as a motivating factor!)

Jordan

Hi all,

In case anyone haven't read this article yey, here is a link:

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison

It claims that GCC 4.8 has better diagnostics than Clang for some cases.

I consider this a testament to Clang that its diagnostics were good enough to make diagnostics a priority for other compilers. If the end result of this is that all compilers have good diagnostics, I consider that a victory.

+1

(And it's always good to have competition as a motivating factor!)

+2 :slight_smile:

-Chris