On 12/6/18 5:02 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Radu Ometita <radu.omet...@iohk.io> writes: > >> Hello everyone! >> >> We are working on writing a paper about testing the reliability of C >> compilers by using Csmith (a random C99 program generator). >> >> A previous testing effort, using Csmith, found 79 GCC bugs, and 25 of >> those have been marked by developers as P1 >> (https://www.flux.utah.edu/download?uid=114 >> <https://www.flux.utah.edu/download?uid=114>): . However, after this >> paper was published we are unaware of any further testing using >> Csmith, and we would like to ask you, if you are aware of any such >> efforts or further results. > > Sameeran has been doing some additional testing with modified csmith. > > There's currently no systematic effort to run csmith regularly > to find regressions. That's my understanding as well.
I also got the impression that they'd already hit a significant inflection point with csmith as the bugs it was finding were ultimately duplicates of issues it'd already found. csmith was going to need some significant development to find new ways to stress compilers. I have a lot of respect for John's work. It's too bad I don't see him more often. He's only 15 minutes up the road working with my old group at the U. jeff
