[burgerbrain]

No, you are incorrect about the point being trivial. First off, the macros used in the original program will of course terminate, but if you simply "try every input to the compiler" like is being suggested, you will be attempting to compile any number of non-terminating macros (and you will of course not know which terminate and which do not (Halting Problem)).

The point is that "compilers terminate for every input" is trivially false.

[shasta]

Non-termination of some compiler inputs is a red herring. The only modification required to the original algorithm is that the search proceed in parallel (such that every input eventually makes arbitrary progress).

I agree with your point in a sister thread that decidable doesn't imply practical, but the claim of the original article was undecidable, which has a technical meaning.

[grav1tas]

I would qualify that statement better by saying "compilers with Turing Complete macros or type systems terminate for any input is trivially false". The point may not be trivial (which I'm not ready to concede), but it still doesn't matter. The author's means implicitly relies on an evasion where programs aren't written in this (rather strange) way. It's a safe assumption to say that you can eliminate programs written in such a way that will not compile, then the Halting Problem as you've stated it doesn't apply.

I think you may be right about the point your trying to make, but the point I'm making is that your point covers a negligible section of programs that the author would hope to analyze, so it doesn't matter.