[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: clang vs free software
From: |
joakim |
Subject: |
Re: clang vs free software |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:25:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Rüdiger Sonderfeld <address@hidden> writes:
> On Tuesday 21 January 2014 10:34:01 John Yates wrote:
>> That really does not answer David's question. If you read it carefully he
>> called out "features that require an installed clang to work". That is the
>> crux of the tension here. While the most obvious manifestation of clang is
>> as a C/C++ compiler very similar to gcc it is also much more. That is
>> because it is architected as suite of libraries intended to be integrated
>> into more environments than just a compiler:
>>
>> http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#libraryarch>
>> http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#ideintegration>
>> Tooling for analyzing and manipulating C/C++ is simply a space that gcc is
>> not addressing. Based on its architecture it likely never will.
>>
>> There exist now various packages integrating emacs will elements of clang.
>> These packages are not supporting clang as alternative compiler. Rather
>> by exploiting clang interfaces that have no gcc analog they offer exciting
>> IDE-like features.
>
> GCC provides a plugin interface now which can be used to extract information
> about the source. I started writing a plugin and Emacs interface based on
> that. It can show the callgraph, jump to definition, and show some
> information about symbols. You simply add it to your normal compiler call.
> But I didn't get very far and it requires a patched version of the gcc-python
> plugin.
>
> I hope I'll find enough time to continue working on it. Maybe Clang provides
> better integration. But without an FFI it would have to be linked into
> Emacs.
> And GCC is the main compiler I use anyway.
Interesting. Do you know if the interfaces you use are also provided via
gnome object introspection? Then I would love to try it out using the
Emacs Xwidget branch, which provides an attempt at a GIR bridge for emacs.
>
> (Well I actually started by writing a GCC plugin to generate ETAG files
>
> https://github.com/ruediger/gcc-etags
>
> But it got disappointing when I had to throw away a lot of the nice
> information that GCC provides and generate the simplified ETAG format.)
>
> Regards,
> Rüdiger
>
--
Joakim Verona
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, (continued)
- Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el, David Kastrup, 2014/01/20
- clang vs free software (was: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el), Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/20
- Re: clang vs free software, David Engster, 2014/01/20
- Re: clang vs free software, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, David Kastrup, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/22
- Re: clang vs free software, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/01/22
- Re: clang vs free software, John Yates, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software,
joakim <=
- Re: clang vs free software, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, joakim, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang vs free software, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/23
- Re: clang vs free software, David Kastrup, 2014/01/23
- Re: clang vs free software, Helmut Eller, 2014/01/23
- Re: clang vs free software, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/25
- Re: clang vs free software, Daniel Colascione, 2014/01/25