<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Correctness on ./Code</title><link>https://blog.ouankou.com/tags/correctness/</link><description>Recent content in Correctness on ./Code</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><copyright>© Anjia Wang</copyright><lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 10:54:13 -0700</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.ouankou.com/tags/correctness/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>How REX Validates Benchmark Correctness Without Trusting Naive Diffs</title><link>https://blog.ouankou.com/2026/04/16/how-rex-validates-benchmark-correctness-without-trusting-naive-diffs/</link><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://blog.ouankou.com/2026/04/16/how-rex-validates-benchmark-correctness-without-trusting-naive-diffs/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;The previous post in this series focused on fairness in performance comparison: same runtime stack, same user intent, and the right meaning of time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This post covers the correctness half of the same problem.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question is:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;when a benchmark is supposed to prove that native LLVM and REX still compute the same thing, what exactly counts as &amp;ldquo;the same thing&amp;rdquo;?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The answer turned out to be more careful than a raw &lt;code&gt;diff&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>