Clang vs GCC

Clang vs GCC (GNU Compiler Collection)

Pro’s of GCC vs clang:

GCC supports languages that clang does not aim to, such as Java, Ada, FORTRAN, Go, etc.
GCC supports more targets than LLVM.
GCC supports many language extensions, some of which are not implemented by Clang. For instance, in C mode, GCC supports nested functions and has an extension allowing VLAs in structs.
Pro’s of clang vs GCC:

The Clang ASTs and design are intended to be easily understandable by anyone who is familiar with the languages involved and who has a basic understanding of how a compiler works. GCC has a very old codebase which presents a steep learning curve to new developers.
Clang is designed as an API from its inception, allowing it to be reused by source analysis tools, refactoring, IDEs (etc) as well as for code generation. GCC is built as a monolithic static compiler, which makes it extremely difficult to use as an API and integrate into other tools. Further, its historic design and current policy makes it difficult to decouple the front-end from the rest of the compiler.
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.
Clang does not implicitly simplify code as it parses it like GCC does. Doing so causes many problems for source analysis tools: 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’.
Clang can serialize its AST out to disk and read it back into another program, which is useful for whole program analysis. GCC does not have this. GCC’s PCH mechanism (which is just a dump of the compiler memory image) is related, but is architecturally only able to read the dump back into the exact same executable as the one that produced it (it is not a structured format).
Clang is much faster and uses far less memory than GCC.
Clang has been designed from the start to provide extremely clear and concise diagnostics (error and warning messages), and includes support for expressive diagnostics. Modern versions of GCC have made significant advances in this area, incorporating various Clang features such as preserving typedefs in diagnostics and showing macro expansions, but GCC is still catching up.
GCC is licensed under the GPL license. clang uses a BSD license, which allows it to be embedded in software that is not GPL-licensed.
Clang inherits a number of features from its use of LLVM as a backend, including support for a bytecode representation for intermediate code, pluggable optimizers, link-time optimization support, Just-In-Time compilation, ability to link in multiple code generators, etc.
Clang’s support for C++ is more compliant than GCC’s in many ways.
Clang supports many language extensions, some of which are not implemented by GCC. For instance, Clang provides attributes for checking thread safety and extended vector types.

ClangGCC都是流行的C/C++编译器。它们有一些区别,如下所示: 1. 性能:GCC是一个成熟的编译器,经过多年的发展优化,因此在某些情况下可能会比Clang更快。然而,Clang在某些特定情况下也能提供相近或更好的性能。 2. 编译速度:Clang通常比GCC更快,尤其是在逐步编译(incremental compilation)方面。这意味着在修改代码后,只需重新编译更改的文件而不是整个项目时,Clang的编译速度更快。 3. 错误信息警告:Clang以其优秀的错误信息警告而闻名。它提供详细、易于理解准确的错误警告信息,对于代码质量的提升调试非常有帮助。 4. 标准支持:GCCClang都遵循CC++标准,但是在某些版本中对标准支持的程度可能有所不同。因此,在选择编译器时,应该考虑所需的标准版本以及编译器对该版本的支持。 5. 平台支持:GCC具有广泛的平台支持,可以在多种操作系统体系结构上使用。Clang也具有良好的跨平台支持,但在某些平台上可能会有一些限制。 6. 插件支持:GCC提供了丰富的插件系统,使得可以扩展定制编译器的功能。Clang也支持插件,但在某些方面可能不如GCC成熟。 需要注意的是,GCCClang都是优秀的编译器,并且具有自己的优势适用场景。选择使用哪个编译器取决于个人偏好、项目需求特定应用程序的要求。
评论
添加红包

请填写红包祝福语或标题

红包个数最小为10个

红包金额最低5元

当前余额3.43前往充值 >
需支付:10.00
成就一亿技术人!
领取后你会自动成为博主和红包主的粉丝 规则
hope_wisdom
发出的红包
实付
使用余额支付
点击重新获取
扫码支付
钱包余额 0

抵扣说明:

1.余额是钱包充值的虚拟货币,按照1:1的比例进行支付金额的抵扣。
2.余额无法直接购买下载,可以购买VIP、付费专栏及课程。

余额充值