An Efficient 2-Phase Strategy to Achieve High Branch Coverage

Prabhu, Sarvesh; Hsiao, Michael S.; Krishnamoorthy, Saparya; Lingappan, Loganathan; Gangaram, Vijay; Grundy, Jim

doi:10.1109/ats.2011.83

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [9], as in TreeFrog, previously covered branches are only flipped if they may lead to uncovered branches and sets of conflicting branches are learnt and compared to flipped prefixes. However, the unsat core is recovered from the solver and the tested programs are stateless, which means that it is not necessary to add extra branches to the conflicting set in order to protect the def-use links.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exhaustive Branch Coverage with TreeFrog

Williams

2023

Proceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concolic methods efficiently generate test inputs for exhaustive path coverage. However, exhaustive path coverage is not often required or even realistic whereas exhaustive branch coverage is at the heart of many verification tasks. We explain how, in TreeFrog, we have tried to find an efficient solution to this very different problem. We have kept the efficient aspects of depthfirst concolic generation but combined it with multi-threading for breadth-first search, conflict learning lifted to branches and finally, some controlled path enumeration. First results show dramatic improvements over concolic methods 1 . CCS CONCEPTS•Software and its engineering~Software creation and management~Software verification and validation~Software defect analysis~Software testing and debugging

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exhaustive Branch Coverage with TreeFrog

Williams

2023

Proceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We describe our tool FAST (Formal Automated Specificationbased Testing), which is evolving from an internal tool for branch coverage [14]. It combines the primary techniques from both testing and formal methods to greatly improve the productivity and coverage in unit testing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

FAST: Formal specification driven test harness generation

Gong¹,

Wang²,

Shen³

et al. 2012

Tenth ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign (MEMCODE2012)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Full coverage testing is commonly perceived as a mission impossible because software is more complex than ever and produces vast space to cover. This paper introduces a novel approach which uses ACSL formal specifications to define and reach test coverage, especially in the sense of data coverage. Based on this approach, we create a tool chain named FAST which can automatically generate test harness code and verify program's correctness, turning formal specification and static verification into coverage definition and dynamic testing. FAST ensures completeness of test coverage and result checking by leveraging the formal specifications. We have applied this methodology and tool chain to a real-world mission critical software project that requires high quality standard. Our practice shows using FAST detects extra code bugs that escape from other validation methods such as manually-written tests and random/fuzz tests. It also costs much less human efforts with higher bug detection rate and higher code and data coverage.

show abstract

An Efficient 2-Phase Strategy to Achieve High Branch Coverage

Cited by 2 publications

References 24 publications

Exhaustive Branch Coverage with TreeFrog

Exhaustive Branch Coverage with TreeFrog

FAST: Formal specification driven test harness generation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About