|Catastrophic compiler errors email@example.com (Mark Lacey \[MSFT\]) (2002-04-06)|
|Re: Catastrophic compiler errors firstname.lastname@example.org (2002-04-07)|
|Re: Catastrophic compiler errors email@example.com (2002-04-10)|
|Re: Catastrophic compiler errors firstname.lastname@example.org (Andre Vergison) (2002-04-10)|
|Re: Catastrophic compiler errors email@example.com (Shankar Unni) (2002-04-13)|
|Re: Catastrophic compiler errors firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-04-16)|
|From:||Shankar Unni <email@example.com>|
|Date:||13 Apr 2002 23:10:45 -0400|
|Organization:||EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net|
|References:||02-04-035 02-04-058 02-04-062|
|Posted-Date:||13 Apr 2002 23:10:45 EDT|
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> I should be extremely surprised if some such bugs had not been
> involved, but catastrophic errors are usually the result of a
> combination of many failures.
Not to mention inadequate testing.
After all, is there really a fundamental difference between code not
working because of the writer's mistake, or the compiler's mistake? An
error is an error, and testing should catch it if the software is
designed and tested properly.
Would anyone test with one version of a compiler, and at the last
moment pick up a new compiler and recompile everything with it, sight
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.