Re: Randomized compilation order (was: failure due to compiler?)

Darius Blasband <darius@phidani.be>
24 Jul 1996 22:51:09 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: failure due to compiler? kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (1996-07-04)
failure due to compiler? flake@elda.demon.co.uk (1996-07-09)
Re: failure due to compiler? cliffc@ami.sps.mot.com (1996-07-10)
Randomized compilation order (was: failure due to compiler?) masticol@scr.siemens.com (1996-07-13)
Re: Randomized compilation order (was: failure due to compiler?) darius@phidani.be (Darius Blasband) (1996-07-24)
Re: Randomized compilation order (was: failure due to compiler?) mgrice@iastate.edu (Matthew B Grice) (1996-07-26)
Re: Randomized compilation order (was: failure due to compiler?) pardo@cs.washington.edu (1996-07-31)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Darius Blasband <darius@phidani.be>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 24 Jul 1996 22:51:09 -0400
Organization: Phidani Software, Brussels
References: 96-07-041 96-07-056 96-07-070 96-07-091
Keywords: debug

> >> [Anyone got any insight into why in the world they made a non-deterministic
> >> compiler? -John]


Maybe as a way of exercizing the degrees of liberty in the language's
definition so that a working program does not depend on a specific
implementation for portability (Frankly, I don't think that is why they did
so in the first place, but I guess it might be a possibility, for instance,
regarding Ada tasking. A program that works on a machine might as well not
work under another compiler if the scheduling strategy differs. One way of
attempting to solve this problem would be for the compiler to exercize at
random or pseudo-random various strategies for testing purposes...)


Regards,


Darius
--

Post a followup to this message

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