CompuServe Messages

>Magazines? Oh well, the question is, can you expect a reviewer to run standard >compiler tests? I think this makes a differences between a good and a bad >compiler review. But than, it seems to be impossible to find such reviews. I agree with this. But then again, in some ways and practicality "standard compiler tests" is not straightforward, if it even has meaning. It could potentially put at least one line in the sand though which would be better than what we usually get. The mags suffer many serious problems, and if they at least had a semi-goal, and were to state it, it would be something 🙁 >But I agree, the bugs in the compiler optimizer are hard to find … >(PS: one example – the small PNG gfx format library source here on CIS >doesn't compile right with the 6.51 GO but works fine with 6.55). It's also true that bugs in apps are sometimes hard to find. How do you know it was not a bug in the lib source? Ok in this one case if indeed you did track it and/or verify it was indeed bad code generated, but you do not say. That something works with optimization off and doesn't work with it on does not exclusively mean that the optimizer is the sole culprit, just yet another worm in the can. I have labelled this kind of situation “good garbage''. (I suspect that you do have explicit GO details in some of these cases though.)