Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Nov 2012 23:50 UTC, submitted by Joel Dahl
Permalink for comment 541353
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-07-20
clang is really very good compiler, though I think you're right - its a licensing issue, at the moment I wouldn't say clang is a better compiler.
For C, they both do well, for C++, clang is still not 100%.
And on both C/C++ clang misses OpenMP, which may be a big deal if you're using that a lot.
I do benchmarks once in a while and for me - (testing cycles-raytracer), clang is still slower then gcc (5-10%), and has been for over a year.
IMHO the advantage is more with is ability to integrate with IDE's and be used as a library. - clang/python for example is pretty nice, though focused on IDE's rather then giving you access to all info.