On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 5:30 PM, John Regehr <reg...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> I wonder if the original program was already broken or was this >> something your conversion introduced? > > Not sure about this specific case but I'm sure there's some of each. > > I also noticed these testcases but decided to leave them in for now. > Obviously the code is useless, but it can still be interpreted according to > the C standard, and code can be generated. Once you start going down the > road of exploiting undefined behavior to create better code -- and gcc > already does this pretty aggressively -- why not keep going? > > That said, if there's a clear sentiment that this kind of test case is > undesirable, I'll make an effort to get rid of these for subsequent runs.
+1 for undesirable. Benchmarks are already always artificial, but benchmarks of undefined code are not going to give useful comparisons. Ciao! Steven
