Clang vs Other Compilers
Building an entirely new compiler front-end is a big task, and it isn't always clear to people why we decided to do this. Here we compare clang and its goals to other open source compiler front-ends that are available. We restrict the discussion to very specific technical points to avoid controversy where possible. Also, software is infinitely mutable, so we avoid mentioning anything that would be easy to fix.
The goal of this list is to describe how differences in goals lead to different strengths and weaknesses, not to make some compiler look bad. This will hopefully help you to evaluate whether using clang is a good idea for your specific goals.
Please email cfe-dev if you think we should add another compiler to this list or if you think some characterization is unfair here.
Clang vs GCC (GNU Compiler Collection)
Pros of GCC vs clang:
- GCC supports languages that clang does not aim to, such as Java, Ada, FORTRAN, etc.
- GCC front-ends are very mature and already support C/C++/ObjC and all the variants we are interested in. clang's support for C++ in particular is nowhere near what GCC supports.
- GCC is popular and widely adopted.
Pros of clang vs GCC:
- GCC has a very old codebase which presents a steep learning curve to new developers. The Clang ASTs and design are intended to be easily understandable to anyone who is familiar with the languages involved and have a basic understanding of how a compiler works.
- GCC is built as a monolithic static compiler, which makes it extremely difficult to use as an API and integrate into other tools (e.g. an IDE). Its historic design and current policy makes it difficult to decouple the front-end from the rest of the compiler. Clang is designed as an API from its inception.
- Various GCC design decisions make it very difficult to reuse: its build system is difficult to modify, you can't link multiple targets into one binary, you can't link multiple front-ends into one binary, it uses a custom garbage collector, uses global variables extensively, is not reentrant or multi-threadable, etc. Clang has none of these problems.
- GCC does not track information about macro instantiations when parsing source code, this makes it very difficult for static analysis and refactoring tools to work in the presense of (even simple) macros.
- GCC simplifies code as it parses it. As one simple example, if you write "x-x" in your source code, the GCC AST will contain "0", with no mention of x. This is extremely bad for a refactoring tool that wants to rename 'x' for example.
- GCC does not have a way to serialize the AST of a file out to disk and read it back into another program. Its PCH mechanism is architecturally only able to read the dump back into the exact same binary.
- GCC is very slow and uses a large amount of memory.
- The diagnostics produced by GCC are acceptable, but are often confusing and it does not support expressive diagnostics.
- GCC is licensed under the GPL license. clang uses a BSD license, which allows it to be used by projects that do not themselves want to be GPL.
Clang vs Elsa (Elkhound-based C++ Parser)
Pros of Elsa vs clang:
- Elsa's support for C++ is far beyond what clang provides. If you need C++ support in the next year, Elsa is a great way to get it. That said, Elsa is missing important support for templates and other pieces: for example, it is not capable of compiling the GCC STL headers from any version newer than GCC 3.4.
- Elsa's parser and AST is designed to be easily composable by adding grammar rules. Clang has a very simple and easily extensible parser, but requires you to write C++ code to extend it.
Pros of clang vs Elsa:
- The Elsa community is extremely small and major development work seems to have ceased in 2005, though it continues to be used by other projects (e.g. Oink). Clang has a vibrant community including developers that are paid to work on it full time.
- Elsa is not built as a stack of reusable libraries like clang is. It is very difficult to use part of elsa without the whole front-end. For example, you cannot use Elsa to parse C/ObjC code without building an AST. You can do this in Clang and it is much faster than building an AST.
- Elsa does not have an integrated preprocessor, which makes it extremely difficult to accurately map from a source location in the AST back to its original position before preprocessing. Likewise, it does not keep track of macro expansions.
- Elsa is slower and uses more memory than GCC, which requires far more space and time than clang.
- Elsa only does partial semantic analysis. It is intended to work on code that is already validated by GCC, so it does not do many semantic checks required by the languages it implements.
- Elsa does not support Objective-C.
- Elsa does not support native code generation.
Clang vs PCC (Portable C Compiler)
Pros of PCC vs clang:
- The PCC source base is very small and builds quickly with just a C compiler.
Pros of clang vs PCC:
- PCC dates from the 1970's and has been dormant for most of that time. The clang + llvm community are very active.
- PCC doesn't support Objective-C and doesn't aim to support C++.
- PCC's code generation is very limited compared to LLVM, it produces very inefficient code and does not support many important targets.
- PCC's does not have an integrated preprocessor, so it is extremely difficult to use it for source analysis tools.