From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-173792-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5763 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2012 06:12:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 5755 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2012 06:12:17 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp12.dentaku.gol.com (HELO smtp12.dentaku.gol.com) (203.216.5.74)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:12:05 +0000
Received: from 61.245.22.233.eo.eaccess.ne.jp ([61.245.22.233] helo=catnip.gol.com)	by smtp12.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku)	(envelope-from <miles@gnu.org>)	id 1SIDGB-0004Ra-1F; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:11:59 +0900
Received: by catnip.gol.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)	id 361192BD47; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:11:58 +0900 (JST)
From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>,  Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>,  Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,  Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>,  Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>,  Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,  Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com>,  Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>,  David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>,  Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>,  gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8
References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com>	<CAGWvnymDHXtN1AR9hdrYpV7UVw-rkk5ZiM0kS9DbVLY24xQ-6Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAiZkiA29bnrEHg3jHyOtmdFo1HewaW-rp3KYOKC+gfEQ1pXzA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFiYyc0wG3ha4B4BgA6g4NPnBG6Pj3iuMZ+_B+3AOgBkKvXpLg@mail.gmail.com>	<4F7C35A3.3080207@codesourcery.com>	<CAFiYyc0knheu7jRBUd5Vtva5Bj7GBypzCQ9BFmFYGXzLcFBYGA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAkRFZ+4RfHszKh50DW1wKSis0wo3516Hy8626FNpYwgGWdABQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20120410084614.GJ6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1204101425310.25409@wotan.suse.de>	<CAAkRFZJp0TbK_nCEvfPrvekhQ2m8Ywj9jrBa121dY2q4pHxOVg@mail.gmail.com>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1204101814180.25409@wotan.suse.de>	<1334078968.11195.64.camel@triegel.csb>	<CAFiYyc1=-E5GhLU1_pgWooDNOfB4Hb4MynTEF1pgfAiUrHXHKg@mail.gmail.com>	<1334149073.3101.23.camel@triegel.csb>	<CAAkRFZ+4apO-5t0B7QsBUakB2HFfeuc=YAze3gfU6e9zmix3yQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+=Sn1m+PZ=+d2YPJZr=2Y=7aVT5d2eWthaJ6uH11B8eTZCFuQ@mail.gmail.com>	<mcr62d5bkqo.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com>
System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:12:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <mcr62d5bkqo.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com> (Ian	Lance Taylor's message of "Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:08:15 -0700")
Message-ID: <87obqxmqc1.fsf@catnip.gol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00469.txt.bz2

Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> writes:
>> And GCC usually has better diagnostic than clang except in those few
>> areas which it does not (those some might say those areas are the most
>> important ones).
>
> No.  clang's diagnostics for C++ are much much better than GCC's.
> Obviously GCC's can improve, but today clang's are much better.

Meh.  Clang's diagnostics are often pretty good, and it's rightly lauded
for that, but the "OMG clang totally murders gcc for diagnostics!" meme
(which seems to be staple of clang's unfortunately large fanboi
contingent) is an exaggeration.  Clang's diagnostics are not _that_
good, gcc's are [currently] not that bad, and the situations where the
difference is the most noticeable tend to be obscure.

(remember: Only Henry Spencer can say "No." and really get away with
it...)

-miles

-- 
Non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.