From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 22403 invoked from network); 6 May 2020 20:27:20 -0000 Received-SPF: pass (minnie.tuhs.org: domain of minnie.tuhs.org designates 45.79.103.53 as permitted sender) receiver=inbox.vuxu.org; client-ip=45.79.103.53 envelope-from= Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 6 May 2020 20:27:20 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6E10E9CA97; Thu, 7 May 2020 06:27:17 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610A19C9B5; Thu, 7 May 2020 06:26:47 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bondplaza.com header.i=@bondplaza.com header.b="f9PkSx3r"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="uamIgY+A"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id AE3B89C9B5; Thu, 7 May 2020 06:26:44 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 330 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 06:26:43 AEST Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD5489C918 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 06:26:43 +1000 (AEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF70E5C00EF; Wed, 6 May 2020 16:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 May 2020 16:21:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bondplaza.com; h=from:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; s=fm2; bh=FLPFU5rr1eOJKS9Lo8GXIDYZ2IZ4+ 0/tIusSU7HJKws=; b=f9PkSx3rgbXb5j1wmeHKF7kn8e6pRLlUEj4IjpWeRojPm +mZXzuDnEec5fTwk7U6bQwt4LhKZwC4HzCVHqG1UVGknzNgrtDMx8UDhI+ZMzyKs g6T1ENjl+zhjTNH7zjlKNJ6IpTyVSPEO+YJGv2VZcdss/L/1yCIYwxNqhQ7RqNL0 UONgrcb30qmrbbwI/38HGMMqKgIPJtxmFxsDLgCjENSjNo1XpYtJpbpUDHcSr3z2 M0hEmet1i971OZ5CTGgEXEEUDueklsQ8VrHCfYuNe7gshEKb9ef29iYBGemxMnCk 53/SVDlygpNLLfCIg7Ms0ZeMGQEEXuq700TMREhow== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=FLPFU5 rr1eOJKS9Lo8GXIDYZ2IZ4+0/tIusSU7HJKws=; b=uamIgY+Aknvs90YjRfMneF FmnuJst8I0PMZnsrayw+dulypZX0LE8shlsZiuZ7aV2oGyC1nLhXA2Jz1sLXUpOH JkrKmA2YtLAPzR5h7c3d8+WaY/2aalg5GdvTAhiZE3DyATo2jZa468JFxtc0xF0B bUIVgi/K846RNlF1UoAVG22IsDIHgzA7Ad/pVM7Qwwa4saR7MU8JvmS4LyxY2gDW RIos0kZocUX2tA68mg3YVXmVEul4j/rzCgBAERGnve67qZ0YvfCXXhfgYD7pTKuz 8tYoiEZguebCjZ8PnFhhrp+zNnnzOJQ/TiHkgSpI5Vuy2Sl0Ibgqp8pgQS71Fp7A == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrjeekgddugeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhtggguffffhfvjgfkofesrgdtmh erhhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhimhcutfihlhgrnhgtvgcuoehtuhhhshesthhkrhdrsgho nhguphhlrgiirgdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepteetfeekveehveektdfhje efgefglefftdfhiedvleefleffgeelfffhgfevjeffnecuffhomhgrihhnpehhphdrtgho mhenucfkphepuddtledrudehfedrvdduhedrjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehtuhhhshesthhkrhdrsghonhguphhlrgiirgdr tghomh X-ME-Proxy: Received: from tim-macpro-wifi.10pp.uk (host109-153-215-7.range109-153.btcentralplus.com [109.153.215.7]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 089083280066 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 16:21:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Rylance Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B149B9D3-3E89-49FB-A43B-6CEDE3A9A772" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\)) Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 21:21:08 +0100 References: <202005061553.046FroWn099876@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society In-Reply-To: <202005061553.046FroWn099876@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> Message-Id: <108B38F3-B0E0-46D3-A78F-0A7CE57C6EEB@tkr.bondplaza.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14) Subject: Re: [TUHS] DEC Compilers (was: Re: SDB debugger X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --Apple-Mail=_B149B9D3-3E89-49FB-A43B-6CEDE3A9A772 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>> Compile time was measured. My favorite "bug" was the >>> many minutes it took to compile a constant expression >>> that involved shifting a constant INT_MAX bits by >>> performing that many 1-bit shifts. >>=20 >> I don't know if this anecdote is an urban legend or if it really >> happened. I was told [a similar] story when I was interning as an = operator >> at my alma mater, which was an IBM System/360 shop. >=20 > I heard it not from the grapevine, but from McKeeman himself. It=E2=80=99s mentioned in the paper = (https://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/dtj/vol10num1/vol10num1art9.pdf = ) on = page 105, table 1 Results of Testing C Compilers Source Code Resulting Problem 1>>INT_MAX Twenty-minute compile time but not explained. My favourite is int(=E2=80=A6(x)=E2=80=A6) enough nested = parentheses to kill the compiler Spurious diagnostic (10 parentheses) Compiler crash (100 parentheses) Server crash (10,000 parentheses) explained on page 104: =E2=80=A6 the server crash occurred when the tested compiler got a stack = overflow on a heavily loaded machine with a very large memory. The = operating system attempted to dump a gigabyte of compiler stack, which = caused all the other active users to thrash, and many of them also = dumped for lack of memory. The many disk drives on the server began a = dance of the lights that sopped up the remaining free resources, causing = the operators to boot the server to recover. Excellent testing can make = you unpopular with almost everyone.=20 --Apple-Mail=_B149B9D3-3E89-49FB-A43B-6CEDE3A9A772 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

Compile time was = measured. My favorite "bug" was the
many minutes it took = to compile a constant expression
that involved shifting a = constant INT_MAX bits by
performing that many 1-bit = shifts.

I don't know if this = anecdote is an urban legend or if it really
happened. =  I was told [a similar] story when I was interning as an = operator
at my alma mater, which was an IBM System/360 = shop.

I heard it not from the = grapevine, but from McKeeman himself.

It=E2=80=99s= mentioned in the paper (https://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/dtj/vol10num1/vol10num1art9.pd= f) on page 105, table 1

Results = of Testing C Compilers
Source Code Resulting = Problem
1>>INT_MAX = Twenty-minute compile time

but = not explained.

My favourite = is

int(=E2=80=A6(x)=E2=80=A6) = enough nested parentheses to kill the compiler
= Spurious diagnostic (10 parentheses)
= Compiler crash (100 parentheses)
= Server crash (10,000 parentheses)

explained on page 104:

=E2=80=A6 the server crash occurred when the tested compiler got a stack overflow on a heavily loaded machine with a very large memory. The operating system attempted to dump a gigabyte of compiler stack, which caused all the other active users to thrash, and many of them also dumped for lack of memory. The many disk drives on the server began a dance of the lights that sopped up the remaining free resources, causing the operators to boot the server to recover. Excellent testing can make you unpopular with almost everyone. 

= --Apple-Mail=_B149B9D3-3E89-49FB-A43B-6CEDE3A9A772--