1 |
On 19/03/2012 10:18 PM, Andrew Lowe wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/19/12 22:02, Michael Mol wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Mark Knecht<markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Andrew Lowe<agl@×××××××.au> wrote: |
5 |
>>>> Hi all, |
6 |
[snip] |
7 |
... |
8 |
... |
9 |
[snip] |
10 |
> |
11 |
> which currently ranks at 151 in the top 500 list :) It's amazing how |
12 |
> fast this list changes, 6 months ago, this machine was at 107 and 6 |
13 |
> months before that 87. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Andrew |
16 |
|
17 |
Just in closing on this subject, thanks to those who responded, have a |
18 |
quick look at this page from the llvm/clang project: |
19 |
|
20 |
http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html |
21 |
|
22 |
For my non FEA/CFD programming, I don't care if clang is 5 - 10% slower |
23 |
than gcc, the diagnostic output that clang produces looks to be |
24 |
"spectacular" in comparison to gcc and will be enough for me to dump gcc |
25 |
and shift to clang. |
26 |
|
27 |
Andrew |