Remove no longer relevant information in the gcc/llvm comparison page + minor updates
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@207361 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/www/comparison.html b/www/comparison.html
index 40a0d00..e76a07b 100644
--- a/www/comparison.html
+++ b/www/comparison.html
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
analysis, you may not care that something lacks codegen support, for
example.</p>
- <p>Please email cfe-dev if you think we should add another compiler to this
+ <p>Please email <a href="get_involved.html">cfe-dev</a> if you think we should add another compiler to this
list or if you think some characterization is unfair here.</p>
<ul>
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@
<ul>
<li>GCC supports languages that clang does not aim to, such as Java, Ada,
- FORTRAN, etc.</li>
+ FORTRAN, Go, etc.</li>
<li>GCC supports more targets than LLVM.</li>
<li>GCC supports many language extensions, some of which are not implemented
by Clang. For instance, in C mode, GCC supports
@@ -82,13 +82,6 @@
custom garbage collector, uses global variables extensively, is not
reentrant or multi-threadable, etc. Clang has none of these problems.
</li>
- <li>For every token, clang tracks information about where it was written and
- where it was ultimately expanded into if it was involved in a macro.
- GCC does not track information about macro instantiations when parsing
- source code. This makes it very difficult for source rewriting tools
- (e.g. for refactoring) to work in the presence of (even simple)
- macros. This appears to be partially or fully addressed in recent
- releases of GCC.</li>
<li>Clang does not implicitly simplify code as it parses it like GCC does.
Doing so causes many problems for source analysis tools: as one simple
example, if you write "x-x" in your source code, the GCC AST will
