Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: GCC vs Clang Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:41:51 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="19895"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19t0hSC5MrDKPGJtqhowLI4" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:u8smAgSEVjMfSymQBbJAz+5ZEB4= sha1:PUjKzXLrJcWB3um53fSAZnjA4uQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:91008 BartC writes: > On 25/07/2016 12:31, David Brown wrote: >> On 22/07/16 23:18, BartC wrote: >>> On 22/07/2016 18:29, The Doctor wrote: >>>> Which is the better compiler? >>> >>> My experience of using Clang is that it is not complete: it assumes a >>> gcc installation (so that it can make use of gcc's header files and >>> possibly libraries too). >>> >>> So if you could only install one, gcc would make more sense... >> >> If you are using an OS that does not include basic OS headers and >> libraries, then you will need to install those along with your compiler. > > Huh? How is a beginner supposed to know anything about that? They will > expect a C compiler to come with everything needed to compile C programs > into something that can be run. They will if they listen to you. That's why the rest of us have to point out that you are mistaken. Ignorance is not a virtue, nor is it uncurable. [...] -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"