Hi,
I'm not sure who on this mailing list reads comp.compilers, but there is
an interesting article about built-in regression search in the go
compiler at https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/23-05-003 .
Using a similar approach could also be interesting for gcc,
complementing tools like
Snapshot gcc-13-20230513 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20230513/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On 5/12/23 8:45 PM, Po Lu wrote:
> Gabriel Ravier writes:
>
>> ...You're joking, right ? You can't possibly be seriously arguing
>> this, you have to be kidding... right ?
>
> No, I'm not. The meaning of a variable declaration with only a storage
> class specifier is extremely clear: the type o
On 5/13/23 1:53 AM, Po Lu wrote:
> There are no ``errors'' in Standard C (with the possible exception of
> the #error preprocessing directive), only constraint and syntax rule
> violations. Such violations are required to generate diagnostic
> messages, after which the behavior of the translator c
Eli Schwartz writes:
> Quoting my previous reply on the topic.
>
> Until everyone is on the same page as you about whether these are GNUC
> extensions, this conversation will go nowhere.
>
> You are of the opinion that "GCC currently behaves a certain way when
> compiling the code" means that the
Eli Schwartz writes:
> GNU C does not define any such thing. It may happen to turn out that
> way, but that is not the same as defining its behavior.
It is.
>> Nor does GCC conform to the Standard by default: while it is okay for a
>> conforming implementation to translate programs relying on i
On 5/14/23 1:28 AM, Po Lu wrote:
>> GCC has formal documentation. It is written in HTML. If it is lacking,
>> then the only valid move is to improve the HTML documentation and then
>> abide by it. In the absence of documentation, all behavior is, well,
>> "undocumented", which ***definitely*** mean
On 5/14/23 1:28 AM, Po Lu wrote:
>> You may feel free to take an exact GCC release (source or binary),
>> analyze it, reverse-engineer it, or verify that it does what you want
>> it to do, and then trust that those undefined and undocumented
>> behaviors are ***benevolent***, but that doesn't cause
