Re: compiler bugs

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:02:32 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers

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]
| List of all articles for this month |

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



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.