Paper detail

PTE: Axiomatic Semantics based Compiler Testing

The correctness of a compiler affects the correctness of every program written in the language, and thus must be thoroughly evaluated. Existing automatic compiler testing methods however either rely on weak oracles (e.g., a program behaves the same if only dead code is modified), or require substantial initial effort (e.g., having a complete operational language semantics). While the former prevents a comprehensive correctness evaluation, the latter makes those methods irrelevant in practice. In this work, we propose an axiomatic semantics based approach for testing compilers, called PTE. The idea is to incrementally develop a set of ``axioms'' capturing anecdotes of the language semantics in the form of \emph{(\textbf{p}recondition, \textbf{t}ransformation, \textbf{e}xpectation) triples, which allows us to test the compiler automatically.} Such axioms are written in the same language whose compiler is under test, and can be developed either based on the language specification, or by generalizing the bug reports. PTE has been applied to a newly developed compiler (i.e., Cangjie) and a mature compiler (i.e., Java), and successfully identified 42 implementation bugs and 9 potential language design issues.

preprint2024arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.