From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 28026 invoked from network); 5 May 2020 17:37:22 -0000 Received-SPF: pass (minnie.tuhs.org: domain of minnie.tuhs.org designates 45.79.103.53 as permitted sender) receiver=inbox.vuxu.org; client-ip=45.79.103.53 envelope-from= Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 5 May 2020 17:37:22 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2690D9CA90; Wed, 6 May 2020 03:37:13 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28D89CA8F; Wed, 6 May 2020 03:36:45 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Pd70FO11"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8E5E19CA8F; Wed, 6 May 2020 03:36:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f44.google.com (mail-ua1-f44.google.com [209.85.222.44]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 286FB9CA8E for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 03:36:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f44.google.com with SMTP id y10so728663uao.8 for ; Tue, 05 May 2020 10:36:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=b5HC05y9KTOMBfWFtJ6yurIkq5lO6iw5nEbyY95zRZI=; b=Pd70FO11lzO8WYBJmPij4KKU9EAmQS5D5HwxGgkB5QcxjYfd391vqzxe3mAhz5dYJb kT+mmpDrM5b9Kllm1caoj48FjtCSyV6pvOQKrhpT02aKGTL9+nwfOndDCAamEPyd2Wi3 pvneUWh3A2koiDNVhyz4dq+vauxr7+rkFERON5EEmksnhnek3SopFDrKmj9jLVcIMoMG NcTcHt+vznhYpsXUBVjFqJOx6bgW1Ked3EMJ7OOKo1u3LM9GANVBf93ua/dq8AAPrgkc KRTE6dZp+ApeONqnUdujnggjZli2zxetLviAiUICaWxyYhmJBQJaSdZwzKh+CetTSTrd +f1w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=b5HC05y9KTOMBfWFtJ6yurIkq5lO6iw5nEbyY95zRZI=; b=LbRuaPn9uhnyCChe3DCP2IQTZqbkdHSB/2gyP9VrqvwP8P9FMrbcDsfpzkBZgCQ/ux TNGTGjZD9zpxIXyy8we4kzWa4+PUZen+PMIQLXwb5nPjP99/Gkq7Y3KTOfiTMKRERcqX yifiNT66eJUiVShqNFod+CPp493b9zdVrsKprUuDBLQj+U+Qa6fkQWSL1DMAnjqytsUe emR/y9l+BwywzcqRLWcz2uGR7bTrTA+fllO62TRaxda6dSAyTNWPyf5rIwk7PMqmxu/g EXRqw+Qh9YVNLLMj+m54OVwycgJ2go8zVIZd5853D7jawyBF8DgSZIgDVT1uIyYZyn4m b6Eg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZ+PXLIjxikYFEyNLFa1J68/R+GqtXH+2KhVcUjXk9C7H1YVqSD 17HATbEtWzsIyRz4qVEheQRo14ICSZitKhz6x9Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJf9zQX13noBYxMl+LHg7G7y4+J77aAEqDTd+3EQZUx/8UYhUmnW+ky1iyTOhTFT0sZMwfs3AVBUDbHBgp61z0= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3c0c:: with SMTP id u12mr3857352uah.18.1588700201304; Tue, 05 May 2020 10:36:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ab0:46d:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 5 May 2020 10:36:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8D548BBE-AB7A-457E-87F8-F3718A9AC4B7@acm.org> References: <2F4C604D-F01C-4A82-948A-7E77093B48A1@planet.nl> <21F16C75-62AB-422A-A43F-981407E11434@planet.nl> <8D548BBE-AB7A-457E-87F8-F3718A9AC4B7@acm.org> From: Paul Winalski Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 13:36:40 -0400 Message-ID: To: Win Treese Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [TUHS] DEC Compilers (was: Re: SDB debugger X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On 5/4/20, Win Treese wrote: > > Andy Payne, a recent hire at the lab, had been an intern in DEC=E2=80=99s > semiconductor group, where he had worked on randomized testing for hardwa= re > verification. With all the compilers available, he decided to hack up a > program to generate random small C programs with computable expected > outputs. His program then compiled the random code with each compiler and > tested the result. After finding a number of bugs this way, he got tired = of > submitting the bug reports, and changed his program to write and submit t= he > bug reports automatically. > > This caused a little bit of consternation with some of the compiler teams= at > first. I remember that very well. IIRC it was called fuzz testing, and indeed it was controversial, for the reasons Bill McKeeman discusses in his paper. [1] On the one hand, compiler developers said, "nobody would ever write something like that--we can't waste our time on these issues when there are real bugs waiting to be fixed." On the other hand, some of the bugs that fuzz testing turned up provoked reactions such as, "OMG! THAT caused the compiler to crash?" I think the turning point was when fixing one of the fuzz testing bugs also fixed an obscure and hard-to-debug customer problem. Intel's C and Fortran compiler team has also used random testing technology. > [1] https://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/dtj/vol10num1/vol10num1art9.pdf -Paul W.