Re: clang vs gcc 4.7

[Tom Davie]

On 3 Mar 2013, at 11:45, Luis Garcia Alanis <luis@garcia.tv> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I was reading that clang had support for ObjectiveC 2.0 and gcc didn't. 
> However I also read that as of gcc 4.6 it also supports ObjectiveC 2.0.
> 
> Is there a reason clang should be used? 
> 
> Etoile seems to require clang. This makes me thing clang still doing 
> something that gcc cant.

Clang runs faster in -O0 mode.
Clang produces faster code in -O3/-Os mode (especially for objc).
Clang produces better error messages.
Clang will be updated in the future with all of apple's changes to objective-c.
Clang is more friendlily licensed (not that I want to start a flamewar, and I 
realise this argument may not be strong on this particular list).
Clang's codebase is easier to work on.
Clang supports being used as a library, and hence can have other tools (e.g. 
google's refactored, or the static and (in early development) dynamic 
analysers) built upon it.
Clang's C++ support is better than gcc's.

Is there any reason gcc should be used over clang?

Thanks

Tom Davie