We have conducted a large-scale experiment in N-version programming. A total of 27 versions of a program were prepared independently from the same specification at two universities. The results of executing the versions revealed that the versions were individually extremely reliable but that the number of input cases in which more than one failed was substantially more than would be expected if they were statistically independent. After the versions had been executed, the failures of each version were examined and the associated faults located. In this paper we present an analysis of these faults. Our goal in undertaking this analysis was to understand better the nature of the faults. We found that in some cases the programmers made equivalent logical errors, indicating that some parts of the problem were simply more difficult than others. We also found cases in which apparently different logical errors yielded faults that caused statistically correlated failures, indicating that there are special cases in the input space that present difficulty in various parts of the solution. A formal model is presented to explain this phenomenon. It appears that minor differences in the software development environment, such as the use of different programming languages for the different versions, would not have a major impact in reducing the incidence of faults that cause correlated failures.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract