[sdiy] Some Audio DSP prototypes
mbryant at futurehorizons.com
Fri Apr 22 13:39:15 CEST 2022
Clang is better for C++ and C. It's what it's designed for after all. Large system or small, it's designed to be better. No effort spent on supporting the hundreds of languages GNU does.
On 22 Apr 2022 11:57, Steve via Synth-diy <synth-diy at synth-diy.org> wrote:
>> Out of interest, how hard is it to switch from gcc to LLVM, for fairly standard C code with odd sprinklings of assembler? How much would I need to change? If it's something fairly straightforward that a couple of #ifdefs can cope with it'd be nice to give folk the choice.
> It really depends how deep you've gone into using all the special gcc optimisations. If you just have -0x on the command line then it's usually under a day's work. Clang will accept some of the gcc methods of including assembly code, but not all. But if you've spent months tuning your code to get the best from gcc then unfortunately it will be a lot more effort. And if you use the RP2040 toolset RPL supply it's f-word impossible as they've deliberately locked their SDK into unique gcc features.
> As I said there are some situations where gcc can still give better results, although I think this is often because those developers have years of experience getting the best out of gcc and are still learning how to use Clang. Some SMEs thus make sure their code compiles on either.
Are these statements based on experience with C-code only? What about
C++, is it different? Also for more or less "embedded" code, not using
dynamic memory allocation etc, but a lot of newer C++ features of late.
Synth-diy mailing list
Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Synth-diy