The computational fabrication pipeline for 3D printing is much like a compiler — users design models in Computer Aided Design (CAD) tools that are compiled down to lower-level polygon meshes to be ultimately compiled to machine code by 3D slicers. For traditional compilers and programming languages, techniques for checking program invariants are well-established. Similarly, methods like differential testing are frequently used to uncover bugs in compilers themselves, which makes them more reliable.

The fabrication pipeline would benefit from similar techniques but traditional approaches do not directly translate to the representations used in this domain. Unlike traditional programs, 3D models exist both as geometric objects (a CAD model or a polygon mesh) as well as machine code that ultimately runs on the hardware. The machine code, like in traditional compiling, is affected by many factors like the model, the slicer being used, and numerous user-configurable parameters that control the slicing process.

In this work, we propose a new algorithm for lifting G-code (a common language used in many fabrication pipelines) by denoting a G-code program to a set of cuboids, and then defining an approximate point cloud representation for efficiently operating on these cuboids. Our algorithm opens up new opportunities: we show three use cases that demonstrate how it enables (1) error localization in CAD models through invariant checking, (2) quantitative comparisons between slicers, and (3) evaluating the efficacy of mesh repair tools. We present a prototype implementation of our algorithm in a tool, GlitchFinder, and evaluate it on 58 real-world CAD models. Our results show that GlitchFinder is particularly effective in identifying slicing issues due to small features, can highlight differences in how popular slicers (Cura and PrusaSlicer) slice the same model, and can identify cases where mesh repair tools (Meshlab and Meshmixer) introduce new errors during repair.