зеркало из https://github.com/microsoft/clang-1.git
Add a "comparing clang to other compilers" page, to help resolve some FAQ's.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@44754 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
Chris Lattner
Родитель
d276964208
Коммит
8310967dd0
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
|
|||
<!-- Material used from: HTML 4.01 specs: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ -->
|
||||
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
|
||||
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
|
||||
<html>
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" />
|
||||
<title>Comparing clang to other compilers</title>
|
||||
<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="menu.css" />
|
||||
<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="content.css" />
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
<body>
|
||||
<!--#include virtual="menu.html.incl"-->
|
||||
<div id="content">
|
||||
<h1>Clang vs Other Compilers</h1>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Building an entirely new compiler front-end is a big task, and it isn't
|
||||
always clear to people why we decided to do this. Here we compare clang
|
||||
and its goals to other open source compiler front-ends that are
|
||||
available. We restrict the discussion to very specific technical points
|
||||
to avoid controversy where possible. Also, software is infinitely
|
||||
mutable, so we avoid mentioning anything that would be easy to fix.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>The goal of this list is to describe how differences in goals lead to
|
||||
different strengths and weaknesses, not to make some compiler look bad.
|
||||
This will hopefully help you to evaluate whether using clang is a good
|
||||
idea for your specific goals.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Please email cfe-dev if you think we should add another compiler to this
|
||||
list or if you think some characterization is unfair here.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<!--=====================================================================-->
|
||||
<h2><a name="gcc">Clang vs GCC (GNU Compiler Collection)</a></h2>
|
||||
<!--=====================================================================-->
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Pros of GCC vs clang:</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li>GCC supports languages that clang does not aim to, such as Java, Ada,
|
||||
FORTRAN, etc.</li>
|
||||
<li>GCC front-ends are very mature and already support C/C++/ObjC and all
|
||||
the variants we are interested in. clang's support for C++ in
|
||||
particular is nowhere near what GCC supports.</li>
|
||||
<li>GCC is popular and widely adopted.</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Cons of GCC vs clang:</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li>GCC has a very old codebase which presents a steep learning curve to new
|
||||
developers. The Clang ASTs and design are intended to be easily
|
||||
understandable to anyone who is familiar with the languages involved
|
||||
and have a basic understanding of how a compiler works.</li>
|
||||
<li>GCC is built as a monolithic static compiler, which makes it extremely
|
||||
difficult to use as an API and integrate into other tools (e.g. an IDE).
|
||||
Its historic design and <a
|
||||
href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00460.html">current</a>
|
||||
<a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg00888.html">policy</a> was
|
||||
intended to make it difficult to decouple the front-end from
|
||||
the rest of the compiler. Clang is designed as an API from its
|
||||
inception.</li>
|
||||
<li>Various GCC design decisions make it very difficult to reuse: its build
|
||||
system is difficult to modify, you can't link multiple targets into one
|
||||
binary, you can't link multiple front-ends into one binary, it uses a
|
||||
custom garbage collector, uses global variables extensively, is not
|
||||
reentrant or multi-threadable, etc. Clang has none of these problems.
|
||||
</li>
|
||||
<li>GCC does not track information about macro instantiations when parsing
|
||||
source code, this makes it very difficult for static analysis and
|
||||
refactoring tools to work in the presense of (even simple) macros.</li>
|
||||
<li>GCC simplifies code as it parses it. As one simple example, if you
|
||||
write "x-x" in your source code, the GCC AST will contain "0", with no
|
||||
mention of x. This is extremely bad for a refactoring tool that wants
|
||||
to rename 'x' for example.</li>
|
||||
<li>GCC does not have a way to serialize the AST of a file out to disk and
|
||||
read it back into another program. Its PCH mechanism is architecturally
|
||||
only able to read the dump back into the exact same binary.</li>
|
||||
<li>GCC is <a href="features.html#performance">very slow and uses a large
|
||||
amount of memory</a>.</li>
|
||||
<li>The diagnostics produced by GCC are acceptable, but are often confusing
|
||||
and it does not support <a
|
||||
href="features.html#expressivediags">expressive diagnostics</a>.</li>
|
||||
<li>GCC is licensed under the GPL license, which makes it difficult to use
|
||||
for projects that do not themselves want to be GPL. clang uses a BSD
|
||||
license.</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<!--=====================================================================-->
|
||||
<h2><a name="elsa">Clang vs Elsa (Elkhound-based C++ Parser)</a></h2>
|
||||
<!--=====================================================================-->
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Pros of Elsa vs clang:</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li>Elsa's support for C++ is far beyond what clang provides. If you need
|
||||
C++ support in the next year, Elsa is a great way to get it. That said,
|
||||
Elsa is missing important support for templates and other pieces: for
|
||||
example, it is not capable of compiling the GCC STL headers from any
|
||||
version newer than GCC 3.4.</li>
|
||||
<li>Elsa's parser and AST is designed to be easily composable by adding
|
||||
grammar rules. Clang has a very simple and easily extensible parser,
|
||||
but requires you to write C++ code to extend it.</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Cons of Elsa vs clang:</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li>The Elsa community is extremely small and major development work seems
|
||||
to have ceased in 2005, though it continues to be used by other projects
|
||||
(e.g. Oink). Clang has a vibrant community including developers that
|
||||
are paid to work on it full time.</li>
|
||||
<li>Elsa is not built as a stack of reusable libraries like clang is. It is
|
||||
very difficult to use part of elsa without the whole front-end. For
|
||||
example, you cannot use Elsa to parse C/ObjC code without building an
|
||||
AST. You can do this in Clang and it is much faster than building an
|
||||
AST.</li>
|
||||
<li>Elsa does not have an integrated preprocessor, which makes it extremely
|
||||
difficult to accurately map from a source location in the AST back to
|
||||
its original position before preprocessing. Likewise, it does not keep
|
||||
track of macro expansions.</li>
|
||||
<li>Elsa is slower and uses more memory than GCC, which requires far more
|
||||
space and time than clang.</li>
|
||||
<li>Elsa only does partial semantic analysis. It is intended to work on
|
||||
code that is already validated by GCC, so it does not do many semantic
|
||||
checks required by the languages it implements.</li>
|
||||
<li>Elsa does not support Objective-C.</li>
|
||||
<li>Elsa does not support native code generation.</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<!--=====================================================================-->
|
||||
<h2><a name="pcc">Clang vs PCC (Portable C Compiler)</a></h2>
|
||||
<!--=====================================================================-->
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Pros of PCC vs clang:</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li>The PCC source base is very small and builds quickly with just a C
|
||||
compiler.</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Cons of PCC vs clang:</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li>PCC dates from the 1970's and has been dormant for most of that time.
|
||||
The clang + llvm community are very active.</li>
|
||||
<li>PCC doesn't support Objective-C and doesn't aim to support C++.</li>
|
||||
<li>PCC's code generation is very limited compared to LLVM, it produces very
|
||||
inefficient code and does not support many important targets.</li>
|
||||
<li>PCC's does not have an integrated preprocessor, so it is extremely
|
||||
difficult to use it for source analysis tools.</li>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
Загрузка…
Ссылка в новой задаче