C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
blog.llvm.org
C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
1–10 of 91 posts
Re: C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
#2CLint meet CLang and the better for it. Although if I read correctly between the lines, there might be a little trouble getting the engineers to buy in :) Every met anyone who could actually make it all the way through CLint with all warnings on! Enough to drive you crazy!
Re: C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
#3I wonder if this is an indication that google is moving to clang for compiling (and not just diagnostic tools). If that's true, maybe this is another nail in the coffin for gcc? I see apple and google behind llvm/clang, who's behind gcc? Nobody?
Re: C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
#4Well written! The simple bugs that it seems to detect are fairly high frequency so it should therefore improve overall code quality. Looking forward to playing around with this in my spare time.
Re: C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
#5I haven't even done any C++ for a while, but reading those other articles on HN about undefined behavior in C made the example bugs in this article really jump out at me.
Re: C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
#6I wonder if this is an indication that google is moving to clang for compiling (and not just diagnostic tools). If that's true, maybe this is another nail in the coffin for gcc? I see apple and google behind llvm/clang, who's behind gcc? Nobody?
Google has said before they didn't use Clang and LLVM because of performance issues. GCC is far from dead, and probably never will. Clang generated code is still typically 10-20% slower than GCC. Lots of companies work on GCC, including Google, Intel, AMD, IBM, Red Hat and others.
Re: C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
#7I wonder if this is an indication that google is moving to clang for compiling (and not just diagnostic tools). If that's true, maybe this is another nail in the coffin for gcc? I see apple and google behind llvm/clang, who's behind gcc? Nobody?
who's behind gcc? Nobody?
I hear there's this kernel called Linux that depends heavily on GCC.
Re: C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
#8I wonder if this is an indication that google is moving to clang for compiling (and not just diagnostic tools). If that's true, maybe this is another nail in the coffin for gcc? I see apple and google behind llvm/clang, who's behind gcc? Nobody?
Google has said before they didn't use Clang and LLVM because of performance issues. GCC is far from dead, and probably never will. Clang generated code is still typically 10-20% slower than GCC. Lots of companies work on GCC, including Google, Intel, AMD, IBM, Red Hat and others.
Apple's been pushing developers toward LLVM for several years, and is bound to make it an app store requirement at some point.
I've observed no such 10-20% slowdown on iOS, which is more CPU-constrained than most realms. Typically, LLVM-generated code is equivalent to or faster than gcc. Sometimes it's much faster.
Re: C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
#9I wonder if this is an indication that google is moving to clang for compiling (and not just diagnostic tools). If that's true, maybe this is another nail in the coffin for gcc? I see apple and google behind llvm/clang, who's behind gcc? Nobody?
who's behind gcc? Nobody? I hear there's this kernel called Linux that depends heavily on GCC.
Clang has been able to build Linux since October of last year.
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-October/0117...
Re: C++ at Google: Here Be Dragons
#10I wonder how their checks compare to Coverity's and QAC++'s.
I have a passing acquaintance with both, and I'm almost certain both would have caught the three bugs listed on that page.