On Sunday, March 3, 2013 12:51 CET, Tom Davie <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 3 Mar 2013, at 11:45, Luis Garcia Alanis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I was reading that clang had support for ObjectiveC 2.0 and gcc didn't. > > However I also read that as of gcc 4.6 it also supports ObjectiveC 2.0. > > > > Is there a reason clang should be used? > > > > Etoile seems to require clang. This makes me thing clang still doing > > something that gcc cant. > > Clang runs faster in -O0 mode. > Clang produces faster code in -O3/-Os mode (especially for objc). > Clang produces better error messages. > Clang will be updated in the future with all of apple's changes to > objective-c. > Clang is more friendlily licensed (not that I want to start a flamewar, and I > realise this argument may not be strong on this particular list). > Clang's codebase is easier to work on. > Clang supports being used as a library, and hence can have other tools (e.g. > google's refactored, or the static and (in early development) dynamic > analysers) built upon it. > Clang's C++ support is better than gcc's. > > Is there any reason gcc should be used over clang?
For example, on OpenBSD macppc, I have to use gcc to build any GNUstep App, since clang produces garbage on it. Using gcc 4.2.1 on macppc, which doesn't have objc-2 support, haven't tried newer gccs yet. Thought, it may only indirectly clangs fault. Sebastian > > Thanks > > Tom Davie > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnustep mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
