[legends2k]

Tangential: I think many platforms that GCC supports and the kind of optimisation GCC provides might make it a superior choice for projects. For those developers its exciting. Also if an existing project is using it for a long-time and has not intentions of switching to Clang, for them too this would be interesting.

[CoolGuySteve]

My project uses g++ but I’ve been using a clang static-analysis step in my CI pipeline for a while now.

Compiling with clang is much, much slower but it finds interesting errors sometimes. I only had to ifdef out one code section that it couldn’t understand (something about indexing an array with a constexpr function returning an enum class from a template parameter).

It depends on the project, but this one and another project I made work are both 100k lines of C++ and took half a day to setup. It was worth it imo.

[tele_ski]

Interesting that your build times are slower with clang. I've found on most of my projects clang is roughly 30% faster to compile in debug, but release I haven't seen a huge difference between the two.

[moonchild]

My build times are identical between GCC and Clang (debug and release).

But TCC is 10x faster than both of them.

[petters]

Perhaps they are slower because Clang is doing static analysis in this case.

[CoolGuySteve]

Static analysis is a lot slower but regular clang++ is also significantly slower than g++, like a 4-5 minute build time vs 2:30 on g++.

It might have something to do with a heavy usage of templates in a few files, I don't know.

Clang's autovectorization is better in a few functions I disassembled but otherwise the generated code doesn't benchmark any faster, it's better in some places, worse in others.

[cheez]

Nope, also slower for me.