Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
If you wish to imply that Phoronix tests are somehow skewed in favour of GCC, why don't you provide a link to tests claiming otherwise?
All files (including compilers, libraries and includes) are on an SSD. Difference of 2 seconds or some 7%. Not exactly to be ignored, but not enough to make me smile either. At least I didn't have to change much to get it to compile, except replacing 1.0d with (double)1.0.
Until there is not a single Linux distribuition out there compiled with LLVM / clang, and there still is none, it will just not cut it.
Besides, as the Phoronix article shows, it's also not on-par performance-wise.
I'd love to move to a compiler with better / more understandable errors and warnings, especially for C++, and which compiles faster - but until the code does not execute at the same speed (and it seems it mostly lags behind GCC), and until it is not integrated into the system adequately (read: LLVM-based distribution), I do not see the point in switching.