Rob Thorpe (rthorpe@robertthorpeconsulting.com) on 4/12/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>Brett (ggtgp@yahoo.com) on 4/12/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>...
>>Apparently Clang+LLVM needs some more work to compete with GCC
>>on the speed of the compiled code.
>>The speed is close enough that Apple now compiles OSX with Clang+LLVM.
>>With the increased productivity Clang gives you,
>>can throw some freed up programmers at any source files
>>Clang has issues with.
>
>What I don't understand about Clang+LLVM is why people think it will be simpler than GCC in the long-run.
>
>I don't see how LLVM's internals are really superior.
>
>That said, if Apple invest more in it than the Linux community do in GCC it may
>well turn out to be a better compiler in the end.

Read the debugging examples, and the other links I gave.
Clang gives more info to LLVM and does so with half the footprint.
Programmers are more productive with the better error messages.
I am tired of using wood and flint tools like GCC.

My code compiles faster with Clang, no dusty decks here, new code.
The problems with the end result running slower can be solved by applying cubic dollars, which Apple is doing.

Which of course would make the compiler slower.
But you still get the better error messages, so ultimately Clang wins.

I prefer a faster compiler to faster output code, if my code is slow I will rewrite it.
CPUs are faster than most users need anyway.