Für die Geschwindigkeit zur Laufzeit ist CLANG als Frontend nicht zuständig, sondern LLVM und das hat schon bewiesen, dass es GCC binärkompiliertes in die Tasche stecken kann.
* The PCC source base is very small and builds quickly with just a C compiler.
Pro's of clang vs PCC:
* PCC dates from the 1970's and has been dormant for most of that time. The clang + llvm communities are very active. * PCC doesn't support C99, 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. * Like Elsa, PCC's does not have an integrated preprocessor, making it extremely difficult to use it for source analysis tools.
Mist: An easily retargettable code generator, which currently supports X86, X86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC-64, ARM, Thumb, SPARC, Alpha, and IA-64. http://llvm.org/Features.html
Okay, der Compiler mag schneller sein und weniger Speicher verbrauchen. Wie sieht es aber mit der Geschwindigkeit des erzeugten Codes aus?
Gruß,
Niemand
Pro's of PCC vs clang:
* The PCC source base is very small and builds quickly with just a C compiler.
Pro's of clang vs PCC:
* PCC dates from the 1970's and has been dormant for most of that time. The clang + llvm communities are very active.
* PCC doesn't support C99, 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.
* Like Elsa, PCC's does not have an integrated preprocessor, making it extremely difficult to use it for source analysis tools.
http://archive.netbsd.se/?ml=pcc&a=2008-01&m=6234221
In den FAQs habe ich "weniger als der GCC" gefunden?
An easily retargettable code generator, which currently supports X86, X86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC-64, ARM, Thumb, SPARC, Alpha, and IA-64.
http://llvm.org/Features.html