[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [csmith-dev] Fwd: Csmith TODO list
Without further precautions, and the way I understand the philosophy
behind these tools, I do not think this has the slightest chance to
hold. Compilers are too false-positive-adverse and Valgrind is too,
A compiler person (not sure if it was GCC or LLVM) asserted to me that
they'd like this property to hold.
I do not expect that it does, but it will be interesting to see when it
doesn't, and to see if anyone will fix "bugs" like this.
Also today I was reading this blog entry:
Pascal I don't understand what you mean "too runtimy". It's a purely
runtime property -- you can't be too runtimy to check it. If we had the
stupidest possible compiler (no register allocation, etc.), Valgrind
would succeed perfectly, unless it has bugs, because every variable
would reside in memory and would be shadowed.
First, someone somewhere pointed out to me that GCC's warnings depend on
the optimization level. I do not remember the source. Was it this
I'm not sure, but you're right. But I think it's basically "at -O0 yo
don't get any dataflow warnings". So it's not very hard to deal with