On 12/17/2011 07:48 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> 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,
--Beman
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 -- Michael Caisse Object Modeling Designs www.consultomd.com