I warn anybody before using ARM Keil 4.13a. It generates defective code. I have spent several hours with debugging a code that has been already worked. The problem affects local variables of functions and passing arguments. Code has been wrongly compiled without any optimization. I have no courage and time to test optimizations.
I also encourage Keil not to publish Keil 4.13a any more.
Keil 4.12 seems to be OK.
Similarly for Jaroslav Fojtík (the OP) and/or Martin Cupak...
It seems that false (?) bug reporting is the new form of trolling...
*#@&ing £%~/ers need to get a life!
For what it's worth, I'm still using 4.13a on our project thats in development (NXP LPC3250, mix of ARM and THUMB mode). The resultant binary image has 300K bytes of code. Using 'go for broke' style optimisations.
So far, I'm not aware of any bad behaviour that is compiler related.
Me neither! F@%$ing morons!
"F@%$ing morons!"
Lack of evidence of bugs is not evidence of lack of bugs. I don't think there exist any C/C++ compiler that doesn't contain at least one source code processing or code-generating bug, and no runtime library without a bug. The question is just how easy it is to trig the error.
"Lack of evidence of bugs is not evidence of lack of bugs."
True. It's one of those situations where you can prove there is a fault, but not prove there is not.
However, the bug that was being described seemed quite fundamental - And the chance of hitting a fundamental error of that nature would be quite high with a reasonably large project.
I have seen no sufficient evidence of a problem on this thread and Keil have not confirmed that there is any such problem.
So on balance, it would surely be preferable to stick with Keil's current release (rather than go back to something that Keil knows created bad code) until someone comes up with a substantiated and compelling reason not to use it.
No - as already noted, it is very old!
I think it's already been mentioned in this thread that it is a common response of a less-experienced developer to be quick to blame the compiler...
Which is one of the reasons why it's so important to have definite, compelling evidence of a bug.
Indeed!
And the alleged bugs may, indeed, be there - but, as you say, we have (as yet) seen no sufficient evidence of a problem on this thread...