From 022231bce0bf458a89b67724b7ae9ae68f404c19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard Smith Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 22:01:06 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] [www] Capitalize "Clang" when referring to the project, and generalize the introduction on the front page page. We still use the lowercase "clang" spelling when referring to the driver binary. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@326493 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- www/comparison.html | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- www/index.html | 18 ++++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/www/comparison.html b/www/comparison.html index 26f421d73b..58dcf13a52 100644 --- a/www/comparison.html +++ b/www/comparison.html @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ - Comparing clang to other open source compilers + Comparing Clang to other open source compilers @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@

Clang vs Other Open Source Compilers

Building an entirely new compiler front-end is a big task, and it isn't - always clear to people why we decided to do this. Here we compare clang + always clear to people why we decided to do this. Here we compare Clang and its goals to other open source compiler front-ends that are available. We restrict the discussion to very specific objective points to avoid controversy where possible. Also, software is infinitely @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@

The goal of this list is to describe how differences in goals lead to different strengths and weaknesses, not to make some compiler look bad. - This will hopefully help you to evaluate whether using clang is a good + This will hopefully help you to evaluate whether using Clang is a good idea for your personal goals. Because we don't know specifically what you want to do, we describe the features of these compilers in terms of our goals: if you are only interested in static @@ -45,10 +45,10 @@

Clang vs GCC (GNU Compiler Collection)

-

Pro's of GCC vs clang:

+

Pro's of GCC vs Clang:

-

Pro's of clang vs GCC:

+

Pro's of Clang vs GCC: