Re:“It is never a compiler error”
by ajross on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @09:57PM
(#15701147)
That argument would make more sense if they actually were faster, which they often aren't. Last I checked (and I don't keep up with this, to be fair) they still lagged gcc on most macrobenchmarks on x86.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:“It is never a compiler error”
by davidcuddeback on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @10:15PM
(#15701205)
> they still lagged gcc
Isn't the "they" in this thread gcc, or did I misread something?
I took "clang/llvm may be reckless, but they're fast and have UBsan", to which I replied "gcc is still faster".
Re:“It is never a compiler error”
by davidcuddeback on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @10:38PM
(#15701275)
Oh, I thought the GP was accusing GCC devs of reckless optimizations. But UBSan is a clang project, so maybe you're interpretation makes more sense. Very confusing thread. :)
Sorry, I should've been more explicit when I responded to the original clang vs gcc comment.
Note that UBSan is (mostly? totally? originally?) a Google project and it's been ported to both clang and gcc.
I mean, if you use GCC does recklessly optimize away (some) security/safety code. This is one of the reasons why we don't use it for code we ship. I work in a safety-conscious industry, where an overeager compiler can literally kill people.