Does Clang/Clang++ not have its own set of standard headers? Isn't this a serious issue if Clang/Clang++ is ever to outdo GCC/G++? Is there any work in progress on this? Ideally, Clang would ship as a ready-to-use installation image that included everything needed to use it as the possibly best C and C++ compiler on the market. Or, am I ahead of myself again? Cheers, Mikael -- Love Thy Frog! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120528/81e08b2e/attachment.html>
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 07:42:12PM +0200, Mikael Lyngvig wrote:> Does Clang/Clang++ not have its own set of standard headers? Isn't this a > serious issue if Clang/Clang++ is ever to outdo GCC/G++? Is there any work > in progress on this?It provides the compiler-centric headers. It doesn't replace the rest of the C runtime library. That wouldn't make much sense. Joerg
> Does Clang/Clang++ not have its own set of standard headers?Which ones? The C runtime library? - that's an entire project on its own, with various implementations per platform (glibc, etc) The C++ standard library? Also a separate project, though less platform specific. There is a standard library implementation under the LLVM project banner - libc++ ( http://libcxx.llvm.org/ ) as an alternative to libstdc++ - Clang can use either, though I'm not sure if libc++ is usable in GCC.> Isn't this a serious issue if Clang/Clang++ is ever to outdo GCC/G++?Not exactly, no - though as you can see above, some of that's already accounted for for other reasons anyway. - David
So, on Windows, Clang(++) will always depend on either Mingw (or Microsoft, once the force_inline issue is resolved). I'm only asking because the Windows norm is that the compiler ships with everything needed - tools, libraries, and headers. Assuming LLVM optimizes better than GNU, wouldn't it to some extent make sense to rebuild the GNU libraries using Clang(++) and then ship the result? Or, perhaps, even rebuild the GNU C and C++ libraries into bitcode modules that are then link-time optimized once the user links? Anybody know what the GNU license permits? Would it be okay to take a Mingw64 build, replace the tools, and then ship the result? I must say that I feel that the whole procedure, from first stumbling across LLVM to building your own C++ program succesfully, is rather long. Now I'm battling some unresolved symbols such as __imp_htonl. The reference to htonl() is in my own code, but I am a "ld" newbie. I seem to recall from the ancient past that "ld" is extremely peculiar about how you order your libraries. Oh, well, I'll figure it out eventually. Cheers, Mikael -- Love Thy Frog! 2012/5/28 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 07:42:12PM +0200, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > > Does Clang/Clang++ not have its own set of standard headers? Isn't this > a > > serious issue if Clang/Clang++ is ever to outdo GCC/G++? Is there any > work > > in progress on this? > > It provides the compiler-centric headers. It doesn't replace the rest of > the C runtime library. That wouldn't make much sense. > > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120528/263ac9fd/attachment.html>
Reasonably Related Threads
- [LLVMdev] Clang/Clang++ standard headers?
- [LLVMdev] Windows question: Dozens of linker warnings and errors
- [LLVMdev] Windows question: Dozens of linker warnings and errors
- [LLVMdev] Windows question: Dozens of linker warnings and errors
- [LLVMdev] Minor correction to the Visual Studio documentation