This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8
- From: Miles Bader <miles at gnu dot org>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:11:58 +0900
- Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8
- References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <CAGWvnymDHXtN1AR9hdrYpV7UVw-rkk5ZiM0kS9DbVLY24xQ-6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAAiZkiA29bnrEHg3jHyOtmdFo1HewaW-rp3KYOKC+gfEQ1pXzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0wG3ha4B4BgA6g4NPnBG6Pj3iuMZ+_B+3AOgBkKvXpLg@mail.gmail.com> <4F7C35A3.3080207@codesourcery.com> <CAFiYyc0knheu7jRBUd5Vtva5Bj7GBypzCQ9BFmFYGXzLcFBYGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAkRFZ+4RfHszKh50DW1wKSis0wo3516Hy8626FNpYwgGWdABQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120410084614.GJ6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204101425310.25409@wotan.suse.de> <CAAkRFZJp0TbK_nCEvfPrvekhQ2m8Ywj9jrBa121dY2q4pHxOVg@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204101814180.25409@wotan.suse.de> <1334078968.11195.64.camel@triegel.csb> <CAFiYyc1=-E5GhLU1_pgWooDNOfB4Hb4MynTEF1pgfAiUrHXHKg@mail.gmail.com> <1334149073.3101.23.camel@triegel.csb> <CAAkRFZ+4apO-5t0B7QsBUakB2HFfeuc=YAze3gfU6e9zmix3yQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+=Sn1m+PZ=+d2YPJZr=2Y=7aVT5d2eWthaJ6uH11B8eTZCFuQ@mail.gmail.com> <mcr62d5bkqo.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com>
Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> writes:
>> And GCC usually has better diagnostic than clang except in those few
>> areas which it does not (those some might say those areas are the most
>> important ones).
>
> No. clang's diagnostics for C++ are much much better than GCC's.
> Obviously GCC's can improve, but today clang's are much better.
Meh. Clang's diagnostics are often pretty good, and it's rightly lauded
for that, but the "OMG clang totally murders gcc for diagnostics!" meme
(which seems to be staple of clang's unfortunately large fanboi
contingent) is an exaggeration. Clang's diagnostics are not _that_
good, gcc's are [currently] not that bad, and the situations where the
difference is the most noticeable tend to be obscure.
(remember: Only Henry Spencer can say "No." and really get away with
it...)
-miles
--
Non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.