If you believe that you won't run into a compiler bug in a large enough sampling of C++ code to build against you are misrepresenting reality or haven't ever looked at the gcc or clang bug trackers.
Rust actually does a really nice job along these lines by continuously building and running test for some subset of crates in crates.io
The only thing maybe even close to that with gcc/clang involved I've seen is nixos's hydra.
Note that this is not all Rust code that exists, but it does help a lot.
I never made anything like that claim. Nor was I making any comment about the utility of something like crates.io.
I was just relating my personal real-world experience working with code. Interesting that I got downvoted, as if what I've experienced in my career was somehow wrong. I certainly wouldn't claim that devs reporting the opposite experience from mine are wrong. It's just that the difference is stark, and I was curious as to why.
Interesting. My experience doesn't back this up at all. I may have issues with 20+ year old code, but I don't remember ever having anything but minor issues otherwise.
I wonder what the difference between us is?