On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:28 AM, David Engster <
address@hidden> wrote:
>
> IMHO, "Refactoring C++" should not be in the job description.
Yet Google is happily applying clang to just that problem:
Refactoring C++ with Clang:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U98rhV6wONoClang MapReduce -- Automatic C++ Refactoring at Google Scale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbDzTM21BQ
To me it is the publicizing of that kind of work that undercuts gcc, not whether DragonEgg links clang with the gcc backend or whether somebody might offer a proprietary product involving some gcc code. (If the product meets with minimal commercial success do we really care that deeply?)
Gcc may still produce better code than clang+llvm but clang is enabling exciting computer science and engineering for which gcc is inappropriate. Not because the source is not available. But because the gcc codebase does not expose the right interfaces and abstractions.
/john