You might find Table 1 of our recent paper interesting. The paper's here:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/emsoft08-preprint.pdf
There are three lines that show empirical failure rates for avr-gcc 3.4.3,
4.1.2, and 4.2.2, in terms of volatile errors and regular old
miscompilations.
It is interesting that the "functional error" rate for avr-gcc is
significantly higher than x86-gcc. My guess is that the miscompilations
that we are seeing are the known problems in the avr backend that are
sometimes discussed on this list (last discussed in the context of the new
integrated register allocator, I think).
John Regehr
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, David Carr wrote:
By reliability, I mean least probability of undetected errors in machine code
generation. IE: The machine code conforms to the source code.
Thanks,
-DC
Weddington, Eric wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel....@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel....@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of David Carr
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:34 PM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Most reliable version of avr-gcc?
If one were to compile a program for the AVR where reliability was far
more important than code size or performance optimizations, what version
of avr-gcc would you choose?
What do you mean by 'reliability'?
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
