| ??? 11/02/09 15:21 Read: times |
#170347 - Maturity of compilers Responding to: ???'s previous message |
10-20 years ago, when you got different results with and without optimization, it was quite likely that the compiler produced bad code.
Today, most compilers are so mature that you can be 99.999% (or more) sure that the error is behind the keyboard. I say "most". For PC compilers, the probability of errors behind the keyboard is probably 99.99999%. But the market is so much smaller for embedded compilers that an optimization bug can survive quite a long time until a user catches it and it gets fixed. But embedded or not - the primary suspect should always be the end user. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Odd calculation result... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hmm. Even odder. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| what is the definition... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler reuses registers and memory cells | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Ah. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Disable compiler optimizations. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler bug? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maturity of compilers | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the primary suspect should always be the end user. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "innovation" as alternative name for bug | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C51 also does that! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C51 has smart linker | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I found a some genuine compiler bugs. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Broken code in RTL is the worst | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Defs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| poor choice of names | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Good data types are really critical | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I'm an idiot. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| informative! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "Answer is wrong" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Which one would you prefer?? | 01/01/70 00:00 |