|Compiler Bugs, please! firstname.lastname@example.org (F. Liekweg) (2001-12-20)|
|Re: Compiler Bugs, please! email@example.com (Martin von Loewis) (2001-12-22)|
|Re: Compiler Bugs, please! firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (2001-12-24)|
|Re: Compiler Bugs, please! email@example.com (Toon Moene) (2001-12-24)|
|From:||"F. Liekweg" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||20 Dec 2001 00:35:39 -0500|
|Organization:||IPD Uni Karlsruhe (TH)|
|Posted-Date:||20 Dec 2001 00:35:39 EST|
Yes, I know that most of You are busy making compilers better (or
making better compilers :-). And we all can do with less bugs, be it
in compilers or in any other piece of software, BUT:
I am interested in learning about compiler bugs. The 'My compiler
crashes when trying to do [...] feature' kind of thing is probably
known to everybody; but what about the more obscure kind, like the
FORTRAN (or BASIC) compilers which allowed one to assign a value to a
constant (check out the RISKS Digest 12.39, Subj. 2.1)? Are there
more incidents like this? A compiler producing a valid binary which
shows some unexpected behaviour when executed, because of a
misconception on the side of the compiler (or its writer :-) on the
language spec, or on the target architecture? What happened when a
portable compiler _was_ actually ported to compile to a new platform?
What about optimisations producing 'interesting' results?
NB, my most recent addition to my collection is at:
Huh, many questions. May I ask that You mail contributions to me
directly, so that I can create a summary?
Florian Liekweg | RISC: (abbr.) "Reject Important Stuff
IPD Universitšt Karlsruhe | into Compiler"; see also: CISC
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.