|[8 earlier articles]|
|Re: compiler bugs firstname.lastname@example.org (2009-04-28)|
|Re: compiler bugs email@example.com (George Peter Staplin) (2009-04-28)|
|Re: compiler bugs firstname.lastname@example.org (Marco van de Voort) (2009-04-29)|
|Re: compiler bugs email@example.com (2009-04-29)|
|Re: compiler bugs firstname.lastname@example.org (Tony Finch) (2009-04-29)|
|Re: compiler bugs email@example.com (Derek M. Jones) (2009-04-29)|
|Re: compiler bugs firstname.lastname@example.org (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2009-04-29)|
|Re: compiler bugs email@example.com (Jeremy J Starcher) (2009-04-29)|
|Re: compiler bugs firstname.lastname@example.org (Walter Banks) (2009-04-30)|
|Re: compiler bugs cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2009-04-30)|
|Re: compiler bugs email@example.com (2009-05-01)|
|Re: compiler bugs firstname.lastname@example.org (Gene) (2009-05-01)|
|Re: compiler bugs email@example.com (Christopher Glaeser) (2009-05-04)|
|[8 later articles]|
|From:||glen herrmannsfeldt <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:02:32 +0000 (UTC)|
|Organization:||California Institute of Technology, Pasadena|
|Posted-Date:||01 May 2009 19:17:40 EDT|
> SidTouati@inria.fr (Sid Touati) wrote:
>> How can a simple programmer detect a bug in a compiler ? is there some
>> well known verification techniques ?
> If there is, I don't know it.
Best is to find the smallest program that demonstrates the bug, and
that you can verify satisfies the appropriate language standard.
> Compiler writers generally test their compilers quite hard - there
> are various test suites of source code available, and all serious
> compiler writing organisations will develop test sets of their own
> and expand them as they fix bugs - but there is no simple and
> all-embracing method.
I can only think of a few that I have seen over the years, that I
could reduce down and demonstrate with a small program. One was a C
compiler that miscompiled x++ in the case where x was (double). While
legal, presumably it didn't come up in the testing that was done. (If
I remember it right, it compiled as ++x.) I have somewhat of a
tendency to try things that I know are supposed to work, but are less
obvious than others.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.