vim - gccsense vs. clang_complete -


I am using omniCppComplete + ctags for a while, and want to improve further when the code is completed. [/ P] [P] According to the suggestion here [], GCCSence and Clank_Five have the option, though, I'm not sure which one is better on any of their performance? Thanks!

Update: When I tried Clang_complete, then I found the full speed very unacceptable. I then tried to use it libclang.dylib, which gives a lot of speed, but still feels a cold. I think I should stay in CTGs for now.

You probably should use clang_complete, not gccsense

main point here Has architecture. The idea behind both solutions is very similar: you can not get the normal C + + full access to the internal compiler (GCC) information (abstract syntax tree) while GCC does not provide you enough interface for it. Although the implementation part of access to this information is quite different: gccsense is a type of "hack" - it's a custom plugin that is necessary to store the information needed to provide the plugin, while the clan_complete is completely optional compiler : The clag, which was one of the main goals of the building, which was making AST easily accessible by the external device. In this way, in the case of using GCCSence, you will need to compile your code in a way that is custom-made with GCC compiler, which is already a bit old (GCCSAC is using GCC 4.4 ) Now more convenience will be required to support the developer. On the contrary, the clang_complete does not depend much on the clang compiler, it uses it as an external device

For display: Again, the quarrel was designed to be faster than GCC and it is. Clang_complete may be slightly slower than Windows on Maccode / Linux, although gccsense can still not be compiled for Windows.

Comments