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