Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Mar 2018 20:08 UTC

As of Chrome 64, Chrome for Windows is compiled with Clang. We now use Clang to build Chrome for all platforms it runs on: macOS, iOS, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Windows. Windows is the platform with the second most Chrome users after Android according to statcounter, which made this switch particularly exciting.

Thread beginning with comment 654345
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: slow decline of GCC ?
by ahferroin7 on Wed 7th Mar 2018 13:26 UTC in reply to "slow decline of GCC ?"
Member since:

For a large project like Chrome, I'd be more than willing to bet that a large part of the appeal is the compilation performance of Clang compared to GCC. In my own experience, builds that use Clang tend to take between 10 and 15% less time than building the same code with GCC. While that may not sound like much, it becomes very significant when you're dealing with stuff that takes hours to build even on high-end systems (see for example LibreOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, and the various WebKit libraries).

Reply Parent Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:

Reverse is true for me. I get shorter compilation times with gcc for chromium than with clang (still takes some hours). Otoh, anything obj-c is done with clang. There's no compelling technical reasons to choose one over the other in general. As is evident from assorted tests and comparisons. I rely on both.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ahferroin7 Member since:

Interesting. I've never built Chromium with Clang, but I have done webkit-gtk and Firefox with it before, and both of those built faster. I've not tried recently though, and performance of GCC may have significantly improved since I last tried.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: slow decline of GCC ?
by tylerdurden on Thu 8th Mar 2018 21:20 in reply to "RE: slow decline of GCC ?"
tylerdurden Member since:

This is Chrome for Windows, it was built using MSVCC not gcc.

clang had a bit of an edge over gcc in compile speed a few years back. But I think they compile speed differential is not that significant anymore when it comes to recent llvm vs gcc toolchains.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: slow decline of GCC ?
by Carewolf on Sun 11th Mar 2018 09:07 in reply to "RE: slow decline of GCC ?"
Carewolf Member since:

No, they did this for the compiler monoculture. They didn't want to deal with different quirks in different compilers, so now they only support one single compiler, and thus ends up depending on their bugs (I am a Chromium embedded and have already had to fix several clang'isms in the Chromium 65 code just a few weeks after they went monoculture).

Reply Parent Score: 2