I had an idea to improve the quality of FPC

[ALLIGATOR]

Various online platforms now offer the ability to compile FPC code online, for example https://godbolt.org

What if we try to negotiate with these platforms so that if an InternalError occurs in the compiler output, they save such code examples separately and send them to us?

Not everyone likes to figure out errors, minimize code, create issues, and describe the steps to reproduce the error.

If the other party agrees, the proposed method will provide an additional source of possible compiler tests.

Just an idea

[440bx]

Just an idea

Sounds like a practical and reasonable idea to me.

Maybe it's something that should be discussed with the FPC developers to get their opinions as to how it could be implemented.  Of course, first thing is to determine if there is interest in their part.

[dbannon]

Might there be an issue if the service provider saves someone's code and provides it to a third party (ie FPC devs) ?

I think the suggestion that this might happen would scare people off, even if there was a permission process happening ....

Davo

[ALLIGATOR]

In the event of an InternalError, it is possible to suggest sending the code to the compiler developers for correction

On the other hand, it is always possible to attempt to negotiate; if you do not try, the chances are definitely 0%, but if you try, the chances are higher than 0%

[creaothceann]

Godbolt already has a "Allow my source code to be temporarily stored for diagnostic purposes in the event of an error" checkbox in the settings, that could perhaps be expanded.

[PascalDragon]

Not everyone likes to figure out errors, minimize code, create issues, and describe the steps to reproduce the error.

Minimizing the code is because we don't want to deal with this either. We don't want to wade through other people's code to hopefully find whatever causes the issue. We want an as minimal example as possible so that we can get to the issue at hand with as little work as possible. This is not solved by having this automated. So, no, thank you.

Also we want the issue linked to the user who reported it, because we want to have feedback whether the issue was really fixed for the user as well (cause it can and indeed does happen that some case the user thought of was not thought of by one of us devs). So, again, no.

[Bogen85]

Not everyone likes to figure out errors, minimize code, create issues, and describe the steps to reproduce the error.

I'm not sure if anyone really likes to. But the more one does it, the easier it gets, and becomes less time consuming.
But yes, if things get fixed and the issue filing helps others, there is satisfaction in that.

Automated collection and analysis in a way that use a useful addition to issues filed by users is far from trivial.

And letting AI assisted bots, or any kind of bots, creating issues in the trackers, or spamming mailing lists, well, that could get out of hand fast...