Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > I have not run direct checks on the quality of the optimized code, but > > reports from others that it is improved seem plausible in light of > > the fact that GCC's optimization technology is two decades older in > > origin. > > Yay, another "fact". > > You must have missed the almost complete rewrite of GCC's optimization > framework that was merged in 2004 and that's been continuously > improved since than: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/ > > Really. Do your homework. > > Ciao! > Steven
And another bullet whizzes by my head. Really, attempts to shoot the messenger *won't help*. By ignoring the areas where clang *does* have a clear advantage, *right now*, you are displaying the exact head-in-the-sand attitude that is most likely to concede the high ground to clang. That outcome wouldn't be a problem for me. It would hurt the FSF's prestige pretty badly, though. It's not really my job to care about that, but I thought someone here would. Perhaps I was wrong. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>