https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99694
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12) > > I am asking the question because I am thinking whether the effort is > > worthing or not if I devise a tool that can produce diverse syntactic valid > > but may contain UB test programs to detect crashes or performance issues in > > compilers. The motivation is that I noticed the goal of most existing > > program generators (e.g.,Csmith [1], YARPGen [2]) is to produce UB-free test > > programs to detect miscompiliation bugs in compilers, few (only CCG [3], a > > quite old tool so that may be hard to find bugs right now) aims to detect > > crashs using programs with UB. So I guess our community may lack such test > > cases to further stress compilers. If such diverse test programs (such as > > the reported one) can help improve the quality of compilers, I'd like to > > spend some time on it. > > I would not spend much time on it. It's pretty easy to create an invalid > input > which cause compiler to crash. What's more interesting are valid inputs that > lead > to a wrong-code. That's why all these tools try having UBSAN free input. I disagree - syntactically valid input should not crash the compiler or make it slow. Yes, fixing cases with obvious non-sensical input might be low priority, but the exposed issues are often also issues for "correct" programs.
