Re:Chrome now uses clang for production builds on Linux
by mcescalante on Monday November 17, 2014 @02:53PM
(#8620087)
I posted a link to a 2011 talk from Chromium devs about using clang in another comment here, but below is a summary of what they seemed to enjoy from clang (at least, from the talk points):
- Useful warnings, they look good, and are on by default.
- More than a compiler, lets you build your own tools (example: AddressSanitizer)
- Better performance (less time) with clang vs. gcc for both -O0 -g and -O2 (at the time the benchmark was done on 8 cores, 24GB)
In summary / tl;dr : they enjoy diagnostics, the clang code base, how it works, and the ability to write their own tools. It seems like it's more to do with preference/performance and less to do with licensing. I'm sure that now they're doing many more things with clang since three years has passed since the aforementioned talk.
- Useful warnings, they look good, and are on by default.
- More than a compiler, lets you build your own tools (example: AddressSanitizer)
- Better performance (less time) with clang vs. gcc for both -O0 -g and -O2 (at the time the benchmark was done on 8 cores, 24GB)
In summary / tl;dr : they enjoy diagnostics, the clang code base, how it works, and the ability to write their own tools. It seems like it's more to do with preference/performance and less to do with licensing. I'm sure that now they're doing many more things with clang since three years has passed since the aforementioned talk.