<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>kstrauser</author><text>This is awesome. I don&amp;#x27;t have a dog in the GCC-vs-Clang hunt, but I love love love that the two are leapfrogging each other. It would suck if, say, Clang were so much better than GCC that they stopped doing cool work on it (and vice versa). &lt;i&gt;Everyone&lt;/i&gt; benefits from this particular friendly competition!&lt;p&gt;Great job, both teams. Please keep up the great work!</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Even more fun with building and benchmarking Firefox with GCC and Clang</title><url>http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2018/12/even-more-fun-with-building-and.html?m=1</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>kodablah</author><text>Not sure if directly related to the article, but curious, if you compare GCC and Clang and review GCC&amp;#x27;s logic to improve Clang, have you violated a license? Similarly if you assume API is copyrightable and covered by the license, one wonders about violations just reimplementing GCC extensions. (just spitballing because in general something is not a violation that is not pursued as such)</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Even more fun with building and benchmarking Firefox with GCC and Clang</title><url>http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2018/12/even-more-fun-with-building-and.html?m=1</url></story>