Ah, okay. So I guess we can take that off of the list of advantages. I believe, however, that clang is better at optimization. I could be wrong on that point.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:53 AM David Chisnall <gnus...@theravensnest.org> wrote: > On 25 Nov 2019, at 09:37, Gregory Casamento <greg.casame...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > * C++, while this is not exclusive to clang, gcc doesn't support the > latest version of C++. Clang is extraordinarily good at optimization. > > I don’t think this is true. We have a C++17 project that we test in CI > with GCC. The only times that we experience problems are when we use some > non-standard attributes that GCC doesn’t support (but we also build with > Visual Studio, so we rarely find anything that we need that those two > support but GCC doesn’t, it’s only when we have something ELF-specific > that’s a problem). > > I don’t know how good GCC’s Objective-C++ support is (as I recall, > Objective-C and Objective-C++ in GCC aren’t just base-language + > Objective-*, so it isn’t necessarily a given that you get full C++17 > support in GCC’s Objective-C++), but using C++ smart pointers you can get a > lot of ARC (at the very least - and prior to ARC support, I did - you can > implement smart pointers that manage Objective-C retain / release and use > them to hold Objective-C objects in collections. > > David > > -- Gregory Casamento GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com http://ind.ie/phoenix/
