On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 00:08:35 -0500 Eitan Adler <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Jerry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:08:26 -0600 > > Adam Vande More <[email protected]> articulated: > > > >> While I agree with your point in this context, the statement "The > >> number of _UNDISCOVERED_ bugs, on the other hand, is an infinite > >> one." is false. > >> > >> http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2009/sep/microkernel_breakthrough.html > > > > It was later discovered that the software used to certify the kernel > > 100% bug-free was not itself bug-free thereby nullifying results. > > The paper "Diverse Double-Compiling" by David A Wheeler is relevant > although not strictly the same topic. It could be used to avoid this > type of issue. Even if it works it's only proving that at some level of abstraction the implementation matches a formal specification, there's still scope for higher and lower level bugs. But just because something is unknown doesn't mean it's infinite. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
