Re: clang vs gcc 4.7

[Sebastian Reitenbach]

On Sunday, March 3, 2013 12:51 CET, Tom Davie <tom.davie@gmail.com> wrote: 
 
> 
> 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?

For example, on OpenBSD macppc, I have to use gcc to build
any GNUstep App, since clang produces garbage on it.
Using gcc 4.2.1 on macppc, which doesn't have objc-2 support,
haven't tried newer gccs yet.
Thought, it may only indirectly clangs fault.

Sebastian

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Tom Davie
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep