Language developers finding bugs in LLVM is ok, but if there are already several instances of regressions in LLVM found by developers of (maybe "exotic") languages, then the reaction should be less "hey, well done, you found a bug" and more "how can we avoid such regressions in the future?"...

I imagine Clang and GCC have growing test-suites to defend against regressions. I wonder if they share them.

They both do, yes.

LLVM's [1] includes (some of?) gcc's, the reverse may also be true.

LLVM also has extensive unit tests that can exercise codegen and backend functionality.

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-test-suite

Clang writes a subset of LLVM IR, and other types of IR are supported but very poorly optimized/tested/etc. The LLVM docs say you should generate what Clang generates to avoid regressions.

Separate the backend into functional subcomponents and fuzz them as much as possible?

It's what cranelift does.

Fuzzing is great for finding crashes and other catastrophic misbehavior. But suboptimal codegen like this would be difficult to reveal with fuzzing.

You could do it with a reference compiler (this has in fact been done before) but finding suboptimal codegen like this case would still be kinda tricky.

Based on other comments this seems to be a regression in LLVM. LLVM does have a reference compiler for regressions: It's the previous version of LLVM. (Not saying that that makes this trivial.)

But if this next release makes codegen improvements, those would all show up as differences. Separating the improvements from the regressions is difficult enough -- fuzzing doesn't really help here, it makes it much harder to determine what code should have been generated.

Generally, codegen issues are exposed by benchmarks or someone who is curious enough to examine and analyze the code generated from multiple compilers or multiple releases. The latter is much rarer. But as these happen, the bar keeps getting raised and we do grow the test suite.