On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
I can well understand your hesitation. I didn't jump on the clang
bandwagon for a good while myself, either.
But, from examining and comparing clang's assembly language output
against gcc's, it does seem pretty apparent that clang produces
some pretty darned efficient code, frequently using notably fewer
machine instructions than gcc, so I try to use it now as much as
possible. I also find its error and warning messages to be much more
precise and informative than gcc's, which is a real boon if you do any
coding yourself.
There's that, plus the fact that the base system's version of gcc (4.2)
doesn't fully support my processor family type (amdfam10), whereas
clang does (although, to be fair, gcc 4.6+ does as well).
Have you tried clang with ccache? Any tricks?
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
