done. On Sep 25, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> The comparisons page still needs to be updated on this. > > On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 04:45:04PM +0200, Jonathan Gray wrote: >> Prototypes with a * have since been fixed, >> http://marc.info/?l=pcc-commit-list&m=125215185828082&w=2 >> >> Additionally it would nice if non specific/referenced claims >> such as "very inefficient code" could at least be qualified. >> >> And the GCC pro of >> "does not require a C++ compiler to build it" should likely >> be added to the PCC section, which is rather noticeable >> when X86ISelDAGToDAG starts eating up 700MB or so of memory >> when being compiled with gcc. >> >> In similiar taste would be "does not require GNU make to build" >> and "does not require GNU grep to run regressions", though >> the later does not apply to clang but rather llvm "make check". >> >> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:35:17AM +0200, Jonathan Gray wrote: >>> Prototypes using a VLA with * as the size apparently don't work when >>> tested here. >>> And I don't have a system tgmath.h here. >>> >>> Apart from that at least, >>> >>> inline keyword/semantics >>> VLA (not prototypes with * for size ?) >>> complex numbers, _Complex and _Imaginary types >>> _Bool type >>> ability to use abstract declarators everywhere allowed >>> designated initialisers >>> mixed type declarations/logic >>> type declaration in for loop >>> variadic macros >>> multiple type qualifiers >>> // comment >>> restrict qualifier >>> compound literals >>> >>> Many GCC extensions are supported such as inline assembly format/ >>> constraints, >>> typeof, case ranges, attribute() etc as well. >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:25:19PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >>>> What parts of c99 does it support? Is it comperable to gccs >>>> support? >>>> For example, does it support VLAs fully, including arrays with * >>>> as the >>>> size, tgmath.h, complex, etc? >>>> >>>> -Chris >>>> >>>> On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:34 AM, Jonathan Gray <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> PCC has supported C99 for a while now, so this statement >>>>> should be removed. >>>>> >>>>> Index: comparison.html >>>>> = >>>>> ================================================================== >>>>> --- comparison.html (revision 80998) >>>>> +++ comparison.html (working copy) >>>>> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ >>>>> <ul> >>>>> <li>PCC dates from the 1970's and has been dormant for most of >>>>> that time. >>>>> The clang + llvm communities are very active.</li> >>>>> - <li>PCC doesn't support C99, Objective-C, and doesn't aim to >>>>> support >>>>> + <li>PCC doesn't support Objective-C, and doesn't aim to >>>>> support >>>>> C++.</li> >>>>> <li>PCC's code generation is very limited compared to LLVM. It >>>>> produces very >>>>> inefficient code and does not support many important >>>>> targets.</li> _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
