> Why wouldn't it be constructive?
>
> Even if it's impractical for gcc to change to the degree needed to fit
> your particular project (especially in the short term), hearing the
> details of how gcc's representations fell short, and how others may
> have done things better, seems useful.
My main
simple
> one.
>
> This is not to say that Clang provides everything needed by Annotalysis.
> There is some need to use dataflow information which needs to be
> incorporated in Clang. However, a large fraction of the support required
> was already available in Clang.
>
>
> Diego.
--
DeLesley Hutchins | Software Engineer | deles...@google.com | 505-206-0315
n saying it can't be done without any
> reasoning behind why moving away from GCC is seems a bit out of place.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
>>
>> -DeLesley
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 a
orting one extra
>>> front-end. I am thinking of the embedded folks here where they cannot
>>> afford supporting something as new as clang for their customers.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew Pinski
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've updated the wiki page and moved the branch out of the active
>>>> development branches in svn.html.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diego.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> DeLesley Hutchins | Software Engineer | deles...@google.com | 505-206-0315
--
DeLesley Hutchins | Software Engineer | deles...@google.com | 505-206-0315
since it means supporting one extra
> front-end. I am thinking of the embedded folks here where they cannot
> afford supporting something as new as clang for their customers.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
>>
>> I've updated the wiki page and moved the branch out of
