Related articles |
---|
[8 earlier articles] |
Re: compiler bugs jgd@cix.compulink.co.uk (2009-04-28) |
Re: compiler bugs georgeps@xmission.com (George Peter Staplin) (2009-04-28) |
Re: compiler bugs marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2009-04-29) |
Re: compiler bugs torbenm@pc-003.diku.dk (2009-04-29) |
Re: compiler bugs dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2009-04-29) |
Re: compiler bugs derek@knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2009-04-29) |
Re: compiler bugs gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2009-04-29) |
Re: compiler bugs r3jjs@yahoo.com (Jeremy J Starcher) (2009-04-29) |
Re: compiler bugs walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2009-04-30) |
Re: compiler bugs cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2009-04-30) |
Re: compiler bugs anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2009-05-01) |
Re: compiler bugs gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2009-05-01) |
Re: compiler bugs cdg@nullstone.com (Christopher Glaeser) (2009-05-04) |
[8 later articles] |
From: | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:02:32 +0000 (UTC) |
Organization: | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena |
References: | 09-04-072 09-04-080 |
Keywords: | errors |
Posted-Date: | 01 May 2009 19:17:40 EDT |
jgd@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> 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.
-- glen
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.