Why Clang

Chad Perrin perrin at apotheon.com
Tue Jun 19 16:35:50 UTC 2012

You should really configure your email client to attribute quoted
commentary properly (or, as a first step, at all).

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:51:00AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>be more exact.
> >
> >I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
> >email, I notice) *was* more exact, in that the rest of his email
> >explained what he thought of your glossing over the various factors that
> >might contribute to binary size.
> >
> >I notice you ignored most of it in your response, too.
> or maybe missed. So please tell me finally what is wrong in
> measuring speed by measuring time of execution doing same things?
> What i should measure? time in heavens?

He didn't say anything about your measurement of time being faulty.  He
said your measurement of size was faulty.

> >
> >I can generally puzzle out what caused various GCC warning and error
> >messages when trying to compile my own code, given comparison of what's
> strange but i don't have a problem - and i always set -Wall when
> using gcc as 99% of warnings are actually errors.

I guess you're either some kind of rare genius or suffering from
Stockholm syndrome.  Everyone I've encountered with something to say
about warning and error reporting with regard to Clang vs. GCC has
remarked about how much nicer it is with Clang.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list