Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72

Thread: LLVM's Clang Compiler Is Now C++11 Feature Complete

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,395

    Default LLVM's Clang Compiler Is Now C++11 Feature Complete

    Phoronix: LLVM's Clang Compiler Is Now C++11 Feature Complete

    The Clang C/C++ compiler front-end to LLVM is now declared "feature complete" against the C++11 ISO standard...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM1NTg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Hopefully with this out of the way they focus on things like OpenMP and general performance.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottishduck View Post
    Hopefully with this out of the way they focus on things like OpenMP and general performance.
    Agreed, yet it does appear with the OpenMP that is presently being worked on the team has extended the next round of C++ compliance listing in their status page on the bottom:

    http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,762

    Default

    Clang got there before GCC? I'm impressed. GCC is my favorite compiler, but kudos to the Clang team for winning the race. I guess that says a lot about the maintainability of their code base.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Clang got there before GCC? I'm impressed. GCC is my favorite compiler, but kudos to the Clang team for winning the race. I guess that says a lot about the maintainability of their code base.
    Clang vs GCC maintainability has never been questioned, i mean even other GCC developers have called their own code "a mess" "spaghetti" among other less than flattering terms.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Clang got there before GCC? I'm impressed. GCC is my favorite compiler, but kudos to the Clang team for winning the race. I guess that says a lot about the maintainability of their code base.
    Actually, Clang notes "minimal support for garbage collection and reachability-based leak detection" as N/A (see http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html). I'm not sure what "some data-dependency ordering, and a few other small items." means as these are not listed on the GCC C++11 implementation page (see http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html).

    See also: http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C%2B%2B0xCompilerSupport

    So GCC reached full C++11 language support in 4.8.1, while Clang will reach it in 3.3. Either way, both open source compilers are leagues ahead of their proprietary counterparts.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhdunn View Post
    So GCC reached full C++11 language support in 4.8.1, while Clang will reach it in 3.3. Either way, both open source compilers are leagues ahead of their proprietary counterparts.
    Only if you think proprietary compilers start and end with Microsoft and Intel. There are others, though much less frequently used.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottishduck View Post
    Hopefully with this out of the way they focus on things like OpenMP and general performance.
    It looks like they want to stay away from OpenMP and instead find a solution that works for hundreds of threads, they mention that OpenMP is only good for dozens of threads.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJenbo View Post
    It looks like they want to stay away from OpenMP and instead find a solution that works for hundreds of threads, they mention that OpenMP is only good for dozens of threads.
    Honestly...thats probably not a terrible idea, if OpenMP is limited like that. Its the same argument as to why BFS didn't replace CFS as the scheduler. Sure BFS is good for 8 cores or less, but more than 8 cores and CFS is better and CFS stays better up through hundreds of cores. I do wish they'd support OpenMP in the interim but they are right to be thinking about a future-proof solution.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJenbo View Post
    It looks like they want to stay away from OpenMP and instead find a solution that works for hundreds of threads, they mention that OpenMP is only good for dozens of threads.
    Sorry, but what the hell... how many programs use hundreds of threads ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •