Gitiles
Code Review Sign In
gerrit-public.fairphone.software / fp2-dev / platform / external / clang / 34776d429496601454a817451aede2ea39793b0e / . / www / comparison.html
blob: afc321e061910b0d8efb72bc63179ff33a510946 [file] [log] [blame]
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]1<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
2 "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
3<!-- Material used from: HTML 4.01 specs: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ -->
4<html>
5<head>
Benjamin Kramer665a8dc2012-01-15 15:26:07 +0000[diff] [blame]6 <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]7 <title>Comparing clang to other open source compilers</title>
Benjamin Kramer665a8dc2012-01-15 15:26:07 +0000[diff] [blame]8 <link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="menu.css">
9 <link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="content.css">
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]10</head>
11<body>
12 <!--#include virtual="menu.html.incl"-->
13 <div id="content">
14 <h1>Clang vs Other Open Source Compilers</h1>
15
16 <p>Building an entirely new compiler front-end is a big task, and it isn't
17 always clear to people why we decided to do this. Here we compare clang
18 and its goals to other open source compiler front-ends that are
19 available. We restrict the discussion to very specific objective points
20 to avoid controversy where possible. Also, software is infinitely
21 mutable, so we don't talk about little details that can be fixed with
22 a reasonable amount of effort: we'll talk about issues that are
23 difficult to fix for architectural or political reasons.</p>
24
25 <p>The goal of this list is to describe how differences in goals lead to
26 different strengths and weaknesses, not to make some compiler look bad.
27 This will hopefully help you to evaluate whether using clang is a good
28 idea for your personal goals. Because we don't know specifically what
29 <em>you</em> want to do, we describe the features of these compilers in
30 terms of <em>our</em> goals: if you are only interested in static
31 analysis, you may not care that something lacks codegen support, for
32 example.</p>
33
34 <p>Please email cfe-dev if you think we should add another compiler to this
35 list or if you think some characterization is unfair here.</p>
36
37 <ul>
38 <li><a href="#gcc">Clang vs GCC</a> (GNU Compiler Collection)</li>
39 <li><a href="#elsa">Clang vs Elsa</a> (Elkhound-based C++ Parser)</li>
40 <li><a href="#pcc">Clang vs PCC</a> (Portable C Compiler)</li>
41 </ul>
42
43
44 <!--=====================================================================-->
45 <h2><a name="gcc">Clang vs GCC (GNU Compiler Collection)</a></h2>
46 <!--=====================================================================-->
47
48 <p>Pro's of GCC vs clang:</p>
49
50 <ul>
51 <li>GCC supports languages that clang does not aim to, such as Java, Ada,
52 FORTRAN, etc.</li>
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]53 <li>GCC supports more targets than LLVM.</li>
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]54 </ul>
55
56 <p>Pro's of clang vs GCC:</p>
57
58 <ul>
59 <li>The Clang ASTs and design are intended to be <a
60 href="features.html#simplecode">easily understandable</a> by
61 anyone who is familiar with the languages involved and who has a basic
62 understanding of how a compiler works. GCC has a very old codebase
63 which presents a steep learning curve to new developers.</li>
64 <li>Clang is designed as an API from its inception, allowing it to be reused
65 by source analysis tools, refactoring, IDEs (etc) as well as for code
66 generation. GCC is built as a monolithic static compiler, which makes
67 it extremely difficult to use as an API and integrate into other tools.
68 Further, its historic design and <a
69 href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00460.html">current</a>
70 <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg00888.html">policy</a>
71 makes it difficult to decouple the front-end from the rest of the
72 compiler. </li>
73 <li>Various GCC design decisions make it very difficult to reuse: its build
74 system is difficult to modify, you can't link multiple targets into one
75 binary, you can't link multiple front-ends into one binary, it uses a
76 custom garbage collector, uses global variables extensively, is not
77 reentrant or multi-threadable, etc. Clang has none of these problems.
78 </li>
79 <li>For every token, clang tracks information about where it was written and
80 where it was ultimately expanded into if it was involved in a macro.
81 GCC does not track information about macro instantiations when parsing
82 source code. This makes it very difficult for source rewriting tools
83 (e.g. for refactoring) to work in the presence of (even simple)
84 macros.</li>
85 <li>Clang does not implicitly simplify code as it parses it like GCC does.
86 Doing so causes many problems for source analysis tools: as one simple
87 example, if you write "x-x" in your source code, the GCC AST will
88 contain "0", with no mention of 'x'. This is extremely bad for a
89 refactoring tool that wants to rename 'x'.</li>
90 <li>Clang can serialize its AST out to disk and read it back into another
91 program, which is useful for whole program analysis. GCC does not have
92 this. GCC's PCH mechanism (which is just a dump of the compiler
93 memory image) is related, but is architecturally only
94 able to read the dump back into the exact same executable as the one
95 that produced it (it is not a structured format).</li>
96 <li>Clang is <a href="features.html#performance">much faster and uses far
97 less memory</a> than GCC.</li>
98 <li>Clang aims to provide extremely clear and concise diagnostics (error and
99 warning messages), and includes support for <a
Chris Lattner7eee9f72009-03-19 18:57:33 +0000[diff] [blame]100 href="diagnostics.html">expressive diagnostics</a>. GCC's warnings are
101 sometimes acceptable, but are often confusing and it does not support
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]102 expressive diagnostics. Clang also preserves typedefs in diagnostics
Chris Lattner7eee9f72009-03-19 18:57:33 +0000[diff] [blame]103 consistently, showing macro expansions and many other features.</li>
Rafael Espindola04359432012-08-14 21:58:29 +0000[diff] [blame]104 <li>GCC is licensed under the GPL license. <a href="features.html#license">
105 clang uses a BSD license,</a> which allows it to be embedded in
106 software that is not GPL-licensed.</li>
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]107 <li>Clang inherits a number of features from its use of LLVM as a backend,
108 including support for a bytecode representation for intermediate code,
109 pluggable optimizers, link-time optimization support, Just-In-Time
110 compilation, ability to link in multiple code generators, etc.</li>
Chris Lattner9858e8f2011-05-13 05:29:16 +0000[diff] [blame]111 <li><a href="compatibility.html#c++">Clang's support for C++</a> is more
112 compliant than GCC's in many ways (e.g. conformant two phase name
113 lookup).</li>
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]114 </ul>
115
116 <!--=====================================================================-->
117 <h2><a name="elsa">Clang vs Elsa (Elkhound-based C++ Parser)</a></h2>
118 <!--=====================================================================-->
119
120 <p>Pro's of Elsa vs clang:</p>
121
122 <ul>
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]123 <li>Elsa's parser and AST is designed to be easily extensible by adding
124 grammar rules. Clang has a very simple and easily hackable parser,
125 but requires you to write C++ code to do it.</li>
126 </ul>
127
128 <p>Pro's of clang vs Elsa:</p>
129
130 <ul>
Chris Lattner9858e8f2011-05-13 05:29:16 +0000[diff] [blame]131 <li>Clang's C and C++ support is far more mature and practically useful than
David Blaikie1e2b3d72011-10-14 07:58:10 +0000[diff] [blame]132 Elsa's, and includes many C++'11 features.</li>
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]133 <li>The Elsa community is extremely small and major development work seems
Chris Lattnerb76c2322009-06-26 04:10:17 +0000[diff] [blame]134 to have ceased in 2005. Work continued to be used by other small
135 projects (e.g. Oink), but Oink is apparently dead now too. Clang has a
136 vibrant community including developers that
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]137 are paid to work on it full time. In practice this means that you can
138 file bugs against Clang and they will often be fixed for you. If you
139 use Elsa, you are (mostly) on your own for bug fixes and feature
140 enhancements.</li>
141 <li>Elsa is not built as a stack of reusable libraries like clang is. It is
142 very difficult to use part of Elsa without the whole front-end. For
143 example, you cannot use Elsa to parse C/ObjC code without building an
144 AST. You can do this in Clang and it is much faster than building an
145 AST.</li>
146 <li>Elsa does not have an integrated preprocessor, which makes it extremely
147 difficult to accurately map from a source location in the AST back to
148 its original position before preprocessing. Like GCC, it does not keep
149 track of macro expansions.</li>
150 <li>Elsa is even slower and uses more memory than GCC, which itself requires
151 far more space and time than clang.</li>
152 <li>Elsa only does partial semantic analysis. It is intended to work on
153 code that is already validated by GCC, so it does not do many semantic
154 checks required by the languages it implements.</li>
155 <li>Elsa does not support Objective-C.</li>
156 <li>Elsa does not support native code generation.</li>
157 </ul>
158
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]159
160 <!--=====================================================================-->
161 <h2><a name="pcc">Clang vs PCC (Portable C Compiler)</a></h2>
162 <!--=====================================================================-->
163
164 <p>Pro's of PCC vs clang:</p>
165
166 <ul>
167 <li>The PCC source base is very small and builds quickly with just a C
168 compiler.</li>
169 </ul>
170
171 <p>Pro's of clang vs PCC:</p>
172
173 <ul>
174 <li>PCC dates from the 1970's and has been dormant for most of that time.
175 The clang + llvm communities are very active.</li>
Daniel Dunbar5a7cb842009-10-17 03:28:37 +0000[diff] [blame]176 <li>PCC doesn't support Objective-C or C++ and doesn't aim to support
177 C++.</li>
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]178 <li>PCC's code generation is very limited compared to LLVM. It produces very
179 inefficient code and does not support many important targets.</li>
180 <li>Like Elsa, PCC's does not have an integrated preprocessor, making it
181 extremely difficult to use it for source analysis tools.</li>
Benjamin Kramer665a8dc2012-01-15 15:26:07 +0000[diff] [blame]182 </ul>
Cedric Venet3d658642009-02-14 20:20:19 +0000[diff] [blame]183 </div>
184</body>
185</html>