Hi, we had reported 1 issue (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87118)
Using the extended csmith for gcc c language extensions. We are currently working on adding more extensions to it and fuzzing in background. Thanks, Sameeran joshi On Fri 7 Dec, 2018, 9:07 PM Jeff Law, <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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 >
