[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.