Yes, your understanding is absolutely correct. I should say I'm pleased to receive such a good questions, because it proves that I express my ideas and describe Avalanche quite clearly.)
Avalanche is more likely to find a bug if it is close to the program entry point. Finding deep errors is also possible, but it is probably more a kind of a luck, than a purposeful search. However, I have some ideas that may help to overcome this limitation. I believe that the Avalanche approach (constraints checking for path alternation and bug detection) is very powerful, and so it is worth trying to apply it, for example, for a separate function analysis. But currently it is plans and thoughts, it is not yet implemented. As I have already said, there is still enough questions for research and improvement. > As far as I understand your preprint, Avalanche seems more likely to > discover the input sequences that result in errors after very little > processing than those that produce errors after more processing time? > > best, > > -- > John Dallman > Parasolid Porting Engineer > > Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software > Industry Sector > 46 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1DP > United Kingdom > Tel: +44-1223-371554 > [email protected] > www.siemens.com/plm > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Valgrind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
