3 ms·
> So arguing "LLVM has lots of correctness bugs" is not helping the case It does not help the case about the correctness of Julia, but it does help the case ab
by suavesito 4y ago
> So arguing "LLVM has lots of correctness bugs" is not helping the case
It does not help the case about the correctness of Julia, but it does help the case about Julia having more bugs than other software (negatively for the other projects). Every library built with LLVM that touches those code paths will have those bugs.
Another thing to have in mind is that Julia ships patches for some of these, that are not used upstream yet. So Julia does not suffer from some bugs on LLVM that other projects might.
- ChrisRackauckas 4y agoIt shows that Julia's tests are systematically finding (and leading to fixes) of numerical bugs that are pervasive throughout the rest of the LLVM ecosystem. And since Julia's LLVM is patched to solve these while other variants of LLVM are not, Julia is more correct in these aspects than other languages which rely on the Base build of LLVM. Of course Julia doesn't solve "all bugs", but some of them (like the correctness of certain math library implementations) really make you question how hard other language tests are hammering those for correctness testing (Julia has a lot of numerical tests checking the precision of such methods against MPFR bigfloats at higher precision to ensure ~X ulp correctness for example). Julia definitely spends a lot of time testing numerical correctness than it does testing something like a web server. It's just a prioritization thing.
- nickitolas 4y agoDo Julia devs not upstream their LLVM patches?
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoWe do, but it takes a while for LLVM to accept and release patches, so by the time any one issue is fixed, there will be a new bug to take it's place.