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 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