Author: dgregor
Date: Wed Oct 14 16:54:48 2009
New Revision: 84149
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=84149&view=rev
Log:
Our C++ support is far enough along now that we shouldn't be recommending the
use of Elsa
Modified:
cfe/trunk/www/comparison.html
Modified: cfe/trunk/www/comparison.html
URL:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/www/comparison.html?rev=84149&r1=84148&r2=84149&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/www/comparison.html (original)
+++ cfe/trunk/www/comparison.html Wed Oct 14 16:54:48 2009
@@ -122,11 +122,6 @@
<p>Pro's of Elsa vs clang:</p>
<ul>
- <li>Elsa's support for C++ is far beyond what clang provides. If you need
- C++ support in the next year, Elsa is a great way to get it. That
said,
- Elsa is missing important support for templates and other pieces: for
- example, it is not capable of compiling the GCC STL headers from any
- version newer than GCC 3.4.</li>
<li>Elsa's parser and AST is designed to be easily extensible by adding
grammar rules. Clang has a very simple and easily hackable parser,
but requires you to write C++ code to do it.</li>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
