Subject: Re: [boost] ... broken with clang
From: Michael Caisse (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-12-17 19:12:02
On 12/17/2011 07:48 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Andrey Semashev
> <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> ... All in all, I consider clang to be at a too early stage of development
>> to support it in the libraries.
> While I believe clang has a bright future, I'm afraid I agree with you.
> Clang's lack of support on Windows, including lack of installer, makes
> it hard for Windows developers to work with clang.
> Looking forward to the day when clang "just works" on Windows,
While I have no intent to ship product from clang anytime soon, I do
find that its less verbose and more targeted error messages can provide
a quick way to sort through the gcc/msvc cruft from template errors.
If one were to look back through the ML archives when Doug was getting
boost to build with clang you will find that many a non-compliant
construct was found via clang.
I generally have no problems with clang and boost. I reported an issue
with Log a few days back because IIRC the reviewed version of Log worked
fine. I'll need to re-verify that is true.
I'm certain you are not implying that lack of window's support somehow
makes clang a non-relevant compiler. Imagine what those of us using Unix
do when presented with the myriad of wacky errors produced by VC++.
After my initial groan and sigh I reboot into windows or fire up a VM
and figure it out.
It would be a shame if authors didn't take advantage of compiling with
clang. I generally find that it uncovers real issues that other
compilers miss. I've yet to discover that the compiler was actually
wrong with recent releases.
-- Michael Caisse Object Modeling Designs www.consultomd.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk