2 ms·
This can't be correct. What would be the point of different compilers be then? There's no way that every compiler would produce the same exact insrtuctions for
by pests 6y ago
This can't be correct. What would be the point of different compilers be then? There's no way that every compiler would produce the same exact insrtuctions for each respected input. There would be no point to using an optimizing compiler or one with better intrinsic support.
- Willamin 6y ago> What would be the point of different compilers be then? When given the same input and expecting the same output, there remains only one thing: compile speed.
- pests 6y agoWell, and memory usage too etc. But what's the point then? Why would Intel have their optimizing compiler? Why GCC vs llvm?
- R0b0t1 6y agoObtaining evidence a compiler probably isn't backdoored is the point. >There's no way that every compiler would produce the same exact insrtuctions for each respected input. You don't know this.
- rramdin 6y agoPerhaps you're comparing a multithreaded version with a single threaded version, or a single-host build vs distributed build. When adding new features to a compiler, you might want to verify that the old and new versions have the same output given the same input. If your compilers produced non-deterministic output, this exercise would not be possible.
- pests 6y agoI took the statement "different compilers" to be completely different projects and codebases. Of course reproducable builds make sense in that situation. But why in the world would you ever expect gcc to 100% always match the output of llvm? That doesn't make sense.