Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM's Clang Compiler Is Now C++11 Feature Complete

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LLVM's Clang Compiler Is Now C++11 Feature Complete

    Phoronix: LLVM's Clang Compiler Is Now C++11 Feature Complete

    The Clang C/C++ compiler front-end to LLVM is now declared "feature complete" against the C++11 ISO standard...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM1NTg

  • #2
    Hopefully with this out of the way they focus on things like OpenMP and general performance.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by scottishduck View Post
      Hopefully with this out of the way they focus on things like OpenMP and general performance.
      Agreed, yet it does appear with the OpenMP that is presently being worked on the team has extended the next round of C++ compliance listing in their status page on the bottom:

      http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html

      Comment


      • #4
        Clang got there before GCC? I'm impressed. GCC is my favorite compiler, but kudos to the Clang team for winning the race. I guess that says a lot about the maintainability of their code base.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          Clang got there before GCC? I'm impressed. GCC is my favorite compiler, but kudos to the Clang team for winning the race. I guess that says a lot about the maintainability of their code base.
          Clang vs GCC maintainability has never been questioned, i mean even other GCC developers have called their own code "a mess" "spaghetti" among other less than flattering terms.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            Clang got there before GCC? I'm impressed. GCC is my favorite compiler, but kudos to the Clang team for winning the race. I guess that says a lot about the maintainability of their code base.
            Actually, Clang notes "minimal support for garbage collection and reachability-based leak detection" as N/A (see http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html). I'm not sure what "some data-dependency ordering, and a few other small items." means as these are not listed on the GCC C++11 implementation page (see http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html).

            See also: http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C%2B%2B0xCompilerSupport

            So GCC reached full C++11 language support in 4.8.1, while Clang will reach it in 3.3. Either way, both open source compilers are leagues ahead of their proprietary counterparts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by scottishduck View Post
              Hopefully with this out of the way they focus on things like OpenMP and general performance.
              It looks like they want to stay away from OpenMP and instead find a solution that works for hundreds of threads, they mention that OpenMP is only good for dozens of threads.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
                It looks like they want to stay away from OpenMP and instead find a solution that works for hundreds of threads, they mention that OpenMP is only good for dozens of threads.
                Honestly...thats probably not a terrible idea, if OpenMP is limited like that. Its the same argument as to why BFS didn't replace CFS as the scheduler. Sure BFS is good for 8 cores or less, but more than 8 cores and CFS is better and CFS stays better up through hundreds of cores. I do wish they'd support OpenMP in the interim but they are right to be thinking about a future-proof solution.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
                  It looks like they want to stay away from OpenMP and instead find a solution that works for hundreds of threads, they mention that OpenMP is only good for dozens of threads.
                  Sorry, but what the hell... how many programs use hundreds of threads ?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wargames View Post
                    Sorry, but what the hell... how many programs use hundreds of threads ?
                    RIGHT NOW? Probably 1 or 2. But its a matter of future-proofing. See my post above.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X