From: | William Fahle <billfahle@gmail.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Mon, 30 Jan 2023 02:00:42 -0800 (PST) |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | <Adkz+TvWa4zLl8W9Qd6ovtClKZpZrA==> 23-01-078 |
Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="52756"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
Keywords: | translator, theory, comment |
Posted-Date: | 30 Jan 2023 12:57:02 EST |
In-Reply-To: | 23-01-078 |
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 10:58:58 AM UTC-6, Roger L Costello wrote:
> Sally is concerned. She asks herself:
>
> - With either approach, how do I prove that my mapping is correct?
> - For approach 1, how do I prove that the Intermediate_Code_1 that I generate
> is correct for my programming language?
> - For approach 2, how do I prove that the instance of Programming_Language_1
> that I generate is semantically equivalent to my Programming_Language_2
> instance?"
>
> What is the answer to Sally's questions?
>
> /Roger
> [I think the answer either way is that you don't, and you try to have a test
> suite that is as comprehensive as possible. -John]
This is Post's Correspondence Problem, which has been proven to be
equivalent to the Halting Problem, thus uncomputable.
[Remember that while the halting problem is insoluble in general, it's
often soluble in specific cases, e.g. "halt" or "foo: goto foo".
Nevertheless, I would be quite surprised if anyone could prove a
non-toy translator correct. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.