24 May
2024
24 May
'24
2:52 a.m.
The semantic distinction is important but the end result is very similar.
"Fuzzing" as it is now called (for no reason I can intuit) tries to get to
the troublesome cases faster by a sort of depth-first search, but
exhaustive will always beat it for value. Our exhaustive tester for bitblt,
first done by John Reiser if I remember right, set the stage for my own
thinking about how you properly test something.
-rob
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:49 PM Douglas McIlroy <
douglas.mcilroy(a)dartmouth.edu> wrote:
Doug McIlroy
was generating random regular expressions
Actually not. I exhaustively (within limits) tested an RE recognizer
without knowingly generating any RE either mechanically or by hand.
The trick: From recursive equations (easily derived from the grammar of
REs), I counted how many REs exist up to various limits on token counts,
Then I generated all strings that satisfied those limits, turned the
recognizer loose on them and counted how many it accepted. Any disagreement
of counts revealed the existence (but not any symptom) of bugs.
Unlike most diagnostic techniques, this scheme produces a certificate of
(very high odds on) correctness over a representative subdomain. The
scheme also agnostically checks behavior on bad inputs as well as good. It
does not, however, provide a stress test of a recognizer's capacity limits. And
its exponential nature limits its applicability to rather small domains.
(REs have only 5 distinct kinds of token.)
Doug