Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:29:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> Cc: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: using clang (was: Re: ps, clang and make variables) Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1204011223440.69728@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20120401130201.272897fc@cox.net> References: <4F76DD24.4060104@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20120331135624.GA46283@ozzmosis.com> <20343.7837.796535.407848@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20120401073525.1c05bc0f@cox.net> <20344.21184.853321.579064@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20120401130201.272897fc@cox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1204011223440.69728>