Re: binary search debugging of compilers

From	Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: binary search debugging of compilers
Date	2023-05-19 21:59 +0000
Organization	news.netcologne.de
Message-ID	<23-05-025@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <23-05-011@comp.compilers> <23-05-012@comp.compilers> <23-05-015@comp.compilers> <23-05-017@comp.compilers> <23-05-020@comp.compilers>

Show all headers | View raw

Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> schrieb:

> Oh, stepping doubles with ++ is, I would say, not *that* uncommon.
> I doubt that if such a bug were introduced as an easter egg into GCC,
> it would go very long without being discovered by the FOSS distros and
> other downstream users.

It would very likely be caught by regression testing.  GCC has an
extensive test suite, and it is a requirement that this is run
before submitting a patch.

If that slips through (as can happen from time to time, for
example for different architectures or operating systems), then
the automated regression testers will flag it.

If not that, the automated SPEC testers also have a good chance
of catching it.

As an aside, the post-increment operator is converted to its
equivalent assignment statement very early, during gimplification.

In the following example, the result of the first two passes that
GCC performs are shown - the first is a reproduction of the source
code, as parsed, and the second one after lowering to GIMPLE.
File names may differ bit depending on whic version of GCC you use.

$ cat double.c
double c;

void foo()
{
        c++;
}
$ gcc -c -fdump-tree-original -fdump-tree-gimple double.c
$ cat double.c.004t.original

;; Function foo (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original


{
  c++ ;
}

$ cat double.c.005t.gimple
foo ()
{
  c.0_1 = c;
  _2 = c.0_1 + 1.0e+0;
  c = _2;
}

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

binary search debugging of compilers Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> - 2023-05-12 13:59 -0400
  Re: binary search debugging of compilers Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-05-13 03:20 +0000
  Re: binary search debugging of compilers Fernando <pronesto@gmail.com> - 2023-05-13 04:47 -0700
    Re: binary search debugging of compilers Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-05-14 02:49 +0000
      Re: binary search debugging of compilers gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-05-14 13:38 -0700
        Re: binary search debugging of compilers Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-05-15 21:52 +0000
          Re: binary search debugging of compilers gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-05-16 23:52 -0700
            Re: binary search debugging of compilers Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-05-17 18:28 +0000
              Re: binary search debugging of compilers gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-05-17 15:23 -0700
                Re: binary search debugging of compilers Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-05-19 03:21 +0000
                Re: binary search debugging of compilers Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-05-19 21:59 +0000
                Re: binary search debugging of compilers gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-05-20 20:20 -0700
                Re: Old C compilers, binary search debugging of compilers Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2023-05-22 09:05 +0200
              binary search debugging of compilers Max B <tekk.nolagi@gmail.com> - 2023-05-19 16:31 -0500
  Re: binary search debugging of compilers Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-05-14 19:59 +0000
    Re: binary search debugging of compilers Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally@nyu.edu> - 2023-05-14 23:28 -0400
    Re: binary search debugging of compilers Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-05-15 21:35 +0000

csiph-web