[eordano]

you're saying I should port all my code just because the ui is more user-friendly? what about performance, options, special warnings, builtins, and everything else?

I've been using gcc for a while now, and every time I use it I found a new feature. It's rock solid and had never let me down.

[pgbovine]

just because the ui is more user-friendly?

Those better warnings aren't just due to a simple UI patch ... clang is doing better and deeper static analysis than gcc in order to even be able to produce those more intelligent warnings.

[ahn]

gcc with the dehydra plugin is doing better and deeper static analysis than clang.

[Zev]

Doesn't dehydra do static analysis for C++ code? In which case, of course it would do better then clang; clang doesn't even claim to have complete c++ support yet.

[ssp]

There is nothing deep about these warnings. It would likely be really, really simple to add them to gcc.

[orborde]

And yet, gcc doesn't have them.

[ssp]

If you think these warnings are evidence that "clang is doing better and deeper static analysis than gcc", then you have no idea how compilers work.

[steveklabnik]

You shouldn't need to port your code; C is C, right?

Or do you use a lot of gcc extensions?

[ssp]

Clang is compatible with the most used GCC extensions. See this: http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#gcccompat

[steveklabnik]

Even better!

[upinsmoke]

wow, just wow. how about read what clang actually is before posting?

[ramchip]

Seriously? How can a comment this misguided be upvoted so high?