To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
I agree. Clang provides fantastically clear error messages, expecially when you use templates. But the lack of support for OpenMP is a severe impediment for those like me that do HPC (I am working in a large astrophysical project, and our codes run on machines with 12 cores at least and take hours/days to complete!).
By the way, this is the reason why I removed Mac OS X from my Macbook and replaced it with Ubuntu: to have a reasonably updated version of gcc instead of the very old one bundled with Lion.
Sure, but all things equal - why would you switch if clang misses OpenMP and can't compile some C++ apps (inkscape for example fails, and some areas need non-trivial re-working to make it compatible).
Still, hopefully being default in BSD gives some incentive for clang to become as complete as GCC.
You think Apple is the only organization that doesn't want a GPL licensed compiler? Stop & ask yourself why a (Free|Net|Open|Dragonfly|PC)-BSD based OS wouldn't want a BSD licensed compiler. Those guys don't just use BSD-licensed software on a whim. They believe in that model of software licensing & I highly doubt that they'd want to be at the mercy of the GPL license model --which changes on a whim, the same way that GPL code changes on a whim.
You think Apple is the only organization that doesn't want a GPL licensed compiler? Stop & ask yourself why a (Free|Net|Open|Dragonfly|PC)-BSD based OS wouldn't want a BSD licensed compiler. Those guys don't just use BSD-licensed software on a whim. They believe in that model of software licensing & I highly doubt that they'd want to be at the mercy of the GPL license model --which changes on a whim, the same way that GPL code changes on a whim. "
The only real reason for GPLv3 is software patents, which didn't exist when the GPL was first conceived. You can't really blame them for having to update it.





Member since:
2005-07-06
I'm not a compiler expert, I'm only a GCC and FreeBSD user, so from a practical point of view... why do you consider Clang so awesome?
To me It always smelled like a political decision and not a technical one... Apple wanted a BSD-licensed compiler and not a GPL one so they spent zillons of dollars creating a new one and alienating the open source community.
But maybe I'm wrong and there are technical reasons to have Clang and dismiss good old GCC...