05-22-2010, 12:42 AM
I don't, no. I expect it to support and be stable on the handful of commonly used architectures though.
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
However, in a couple of years it could be the case that when companies come up with new architectures (like the Cell, for instance) they base their compilers around LLVM instead of GCC, and I would love to see that happen.
I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that most of the work on GCC is done by engineers at companies like that, though. So it may be a hard thing to transition away from GCC, but clang has a higher upside. GCC will continue to get messier and harder to maintain while clang hopefully has a good 25 years before it accumulates that much cruft.
05-25-2011, 11:50 PM
05-26-2011, 05:18 AM
Not true, since GCC's code base is continously being enhanced and thus getting less 'messy' and less 'harder to maintain'. Again I don't understand those who wants one compiler to emerge 'victorious', that's the worst possible outcome. Lack of competition ALWAYS leads to stagnation. The best of worlds is GCC and Clang continously going head to head, driving their developers to create the best possible products. The only reason I can see for people to want one compiler to fail is if they have some external agendas. Also it would seem alot of these people are not even using the compilers in question judging by their poor knowledge regarding them.
Originally Posted by theoddone33
05-26-2011, 10:27 AM
clang is great for developers. GCC is great for users. Both are currently very valuable.
Tags for this Thread