Third International Conference on Quality Software, 2003. Proceedings. 2003
DOI: 10.1109/qsic.2003.1319081
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Random program generator for Java JIT compiler test system

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Unlike RUGRAT, Csmith does not support object-oriented language features. In the domain of object-oriented programs, a random program generator has been used to test Java just-in-time compilers [29]. This generator takes the number of desired classes and branches as input.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unlike RUGRAT, Csmith does not support object-oriented language features. In the domain of object-oriented programs, a random program generator has been used to test Java just-in-time compilers [29]. This generator takes the number of desired classes and branches as input.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper, D is assumed to be of numeric type (that is, input parameters accept either integers or real numbers). For applications of RT and ART on non-numeric programs, readers may consult the studies of Miller et al (1990Miller et al ( , 1995; Slutz (1998);Forrester and Miller (2000); Yoshikawa et al (2003); Regehr (2005) and Merkel (2005); Kuo (2006); Ciupa et al (2006Ciupa et al ( , 2008, respectively.…”
Section: Notation and Conceptsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…What is more, its "randomness" may help reveal failures which cannot be detected by deterministic approaches (such as domain testing (White and Cohen, 1980), data flow testing (Laski and Korel, 1983), and branch testing (Myers, 2004)). Because of these advantages, RT has been successfully applied to detect software failures in industry, such as the testing of UNIX utilities (Miller et al, 1990(Miller et al, , 1995, SQL database systems (Slutz, 1998), Windows NT applications (Forrester and Miller, 2000), Java Just-In-Time compilers (Yoshikawa et al, 2003), and embedded software systems (Regehr, 2005). However, some researchers (Myers, 2004) argued that RT may be the "least effective" testing method because it uses little or no information about the program under test.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The three compiler testing techniques have their advantages and disadvantages, in which RDT is the most effective technique for error detection [6] , but it relies on high-precision compilers [3] , and the impact of oracle in EMI technology is minimal , But it is less efficient [6] . The Metamorphic Testing Technique [10] is to test the program by checking the relationship between multiple execution results of the program, without constructing the expected output [4] , effectively avoiding the risk of a test oracle in software testing. In this paper, the technique of metamorphic testing is applied to the compiler testing, and a new compiler test method based on generalized equivalence substitution is proposed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%