On 8/19/2016 10:19 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 19/08/16 09:25, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 18/08/16 19:37, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >>> On 18/08/16 19:29, Dennis Clarke wrote: >>>> On 08/18/2016 02:24 PM, Anna Szekér wrote: >>>>> Witch compiler would you compare it to? >>>> >>>> A reasonable comparison would be the Oracle Studio 12.5 compiler which >>>> creates wonderfully optimal code on both Sparc and x86 architectures. >>> >>> If somebody writes a nice comparison in the style of >>> http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html >> >> But hopefully slightly less self serving. > > To be honest, it doesn't seem an unfair characterization to me. > > GCC could highlight the ethical and tit-for-tat benefits of the GPL, > but I guess they do not see those as a benefit. > > GCC has also the benefit of being a more mature code base and, as a > result, it has been more thoroughly tested in a wider range of codes; > yet this is difficult to quantify and arguably Clang is more widely > used today than GCC, just not in Linux, thus this might not be true > anymore. > > Is there anything else there that you think is misleading or plain wrong? > I have the impression that clang supports OpenMP on linux but not Windows (where gcc drops a few OpenMP features). -- Tim Prince
