Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

Manuel López-Ibáñez
Tue Sep 14 08:30:00 GMT 2010

On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor <> wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez <> writes:
>> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
>> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
>> see yet how GCC developers can consider either more beneficial than
>> the other.
> It seems to me that at the present moment LLVM's frontends are better
> than GCC's, and GCC's backends are better than LLVM's.  By this I mean
> specifically that LLVM's frontends generate better diagnostics, whereas
> GCC's backends generate code that has better runtime performance.  (LLVM
> also appears to run faster, which is a good feature but not in my mind a
> determining one.)  Therefore, I see a clear benefit to clang->gcc, but I
> do not see a clear benefit to gcc->llvm.  This comment is of course
> entirely independent of the licensing issues.

I think you are again talking about user benefits. You don't see a
(user) benefit in gcc->llvm because you perhaps do not use the
features that LLVM has and GCC doesn't. But users of gcc->llvm surely
see a large benefit if people have spent so much effort working on it,
first as a patched gcc and now as a plugin.

But I am talking about benefits to GCC. Do you see any
benefit/downside on adding code to GCC to enable a plugin that
implements clang->gcc?



More information about the Gcc mailing list