> It's worth noting that GCC already supports significantly more C++11 than either MSVC11 or ICC, although this article makes no such comparison
Really great point. I don't understand why this article focused on C++11 of all things. Until recently, gcc had much more complete C++11 support than Clang. Now, it seems they're about on par (if feature tables are any guide[1]). In fact, a couple years ago I was about to switch to Clang but when I started using C++0x I had to stick with gcc because Clang's support just wasn't there yet.
Also, LLVM's C++ Standard Library (libc++) is still pretty immature on Linux, so even if you use Clang for C++11 you're probably going to end up using gcc's standard C++ library anyways!
Phoronix is almost always sensationalist, and often extremely clueless (Phoronix benchmarks, for instance, are more often than not, entirely useless because they're so badly designed).
Never believe anything you read there without independent verification, and even with verification, be suspicious....
Really great point. I don't understand why this article focused on C++11 of all things. Until recently, gcc had much more complete C++11 support than Clang. Now, it seems they're about on par (if feature tables are any guide[1]). In fact, a couple years ago I was about to switch to Clang but when I started using C++0x I had to stick with gcc because Clang's support just wasn't there yet.
Also, LLVM's C++ Standard Library (libc++) is still pretty immature on Linux, so even if you use Clang for C++11 you're probably going to end up using gcc's standard C++ library anyways!
So yeah, this article is pretty sensationalist.
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html and http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html