Re: [avr-gcc-list] Most reliable version of avr-gcc?

[John Regehr]

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: address@hidden 
> > > [mailto:address@hidden
> > > org] On Behalf Of David Carr
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:34 PM
> > > To: address@hidden
> > > 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
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list