LLVM's Clang Compiler Nearly C++11 Feature Complete

[phoronix]

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

LLVM's Clang C/C++ compiler front-end is nearing feature completion for supporting C++11, the latest C++ ISO standard...

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

[stikonas]

That's nice but GCC is doing a much better job at C++11 (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html)

[carewolf]

That's nice but GCC is doing a much better job at C++11 (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html)

Well, looks like they are both almost finished in their next versions. Too bad clang haven't implemented inherited constructors yet though. It is one the features I am really looking forward to using.

[Nobu]

That's nice but GCC is doing a much better job at C++11 (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html)

Three "No" and two "N/A" vs two "No". I'd say it's neck and neck, with GCC having a slight lead. Honestly, they're both almost done. Now it's just up to who <strike>can do</strike> does a better job at what is done.

[BeardedGNUFreak]

Clang/LLVM is kicking so much ass.

FreeBSD and Apple have completely dumped the crap GNU GCC compiler leaving only Linux as the last platform still stuck with GCC.

Just look at the amazing explosion in tools and compiler/language tools and innovation Clang/LLVM have enabled shows just what a massive cancer the GPL and it's shit ideology crippled open source compiler development.

[Nobu]

That doesnt sound wrong...for GCC or LLVM/Clang. Would you describe them as "a tumour or growth that is malignant (can spread)"?

[elanthis]

When it comes to C++11 concurrency functionality, the latest SVN code also handles sequence points.

Are you implying that previous Clang releases didn't handle sequence points, a fundamental concept in C since its inception? C++11 added threading support to the C++11 spec rather than leaving them as implementation details and removed the term "sequence point" in favor of clearer terminology and some refinements to ensure well-defined behavior with the new features, but your summary (based, I'm assuming, off of a naive reading or the Clang C++11 page) makes it sound like they just added sequence points to the compiler. Which is ludicrous, it would have never functioned properly for even many simple programs without them. The "sequence points" item on the Clang/GCC C++11 pages refer to the proposal for redefining and clarifying how expression sequencing works with threads, not adding sequence points to the language.

[wizard69]

Clang/LLVM is kicking so much ass.

FreeBSD and Apple have completely dumped the crap GNU GCC compiler leaving only Linux as the last platform still stuck with GCC.

Just look at the amazing explosion in tools and compiler/language tools and innovation Clang/LLVM have enabled shows just what a massive cancer the GPL and it's shit ideology crippled open source compiler development.

I have to agree with your position on the GPL, the ideology has trampled software freedom. While the GPL might have had good intentions it has turned into an evil worst than proprietary software.

[carewolf]

I have to agree with your position on the GPL, the ideology has trampled software freedom. While the GPL might have had good intentions it has turned into an evil worst than proprietary software.

Okay, I will bite. Name one, just one example of something that has happened in the real world that would make what you just said make any sense?

[artivision]

Clang/LLVM is kicking so much ass.

FreeBSD and Apple have completely dumped the crap GNU GCC compiler leaving only Linux as the last platform still stuck with GCC.

Just look at the amazing explosion in tools and compiler/language tools and innovation Clang/LLVM have enabled shows just what a massive cancer the GPL and it's shit ideology crippled open source compiler development.

You can understand that many extensions for LLVM are under GPL (so LLVM will never be complete) right? You can understand that the next GCC will be like LLVM, binary compatible and under GPL right? I think you can also understand that any one that codes for free does that under GPL, because people they don't want to be used for money and they want something back from there code. How is it right BSD programmers (pros) to want something back and simple people (hobbyists) they don't have the same right? As i see it, BSD is to take other people's work for your self.