Re: [boost] ... broken with clang

Subject: Re: [boost] ... broken with clang
From: Michael Caisse (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-12-17 19:38:38

On 12/17/2011 04:25 PM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> On 12/18/2011 01:12 AM, Michael Caisse wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Have you really tried it?

Yes. It is actually how I develop these days. I compile with both gcc 
and clang. Very often I find clang produces less cruft. Sometimes it 
produces completely useless information. However, just like you, I'm 
well versed in reading gcc output.

>
> It's also much harder to make it display types or other compile-time 
> values in error messages or warnings.

This is part of why I like it. I usually know what my_thing_t is and I 
really don't need the compiler to expand the templates for pages and 
pages. Less often I need to understand exactly why the compiler doesn't 
like the type and seeing the gcc fully resolved output is just fine.

I guess this is why I compile with both during development.

michael

-- 
Michael Caisse
Object Modeling Designs
www.consultomd.com