The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers
Abstract
Compilers should be correct. To improve the quality of C compilers, we created Csmith, a randomized test-case generation tool, and spent three years using it to find compiler bugs. During this period we reported more than 325 previously unknown bugs to compiler developers. Every compiler we tested was found to crash and also to silently generate wrong code when presented with valid input. In this paper we present our compiler-testing tool and the results of our bug-hunting study. Our first contribution is to advance the state of the art in compiler testing. Unlike previous tools, Csmith generates programs that cover a large subset of C while avoiding the undefined and unspecified behaviors that would destroy its ability to automatically find wrong-code bugs. Our second contribution is a collection of qualitative and quantitative results about the bugs we have found in open-source C compilers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Klein, G., Elphinstone, K., Heiser, G., Andronick, J., Cock, D., Derrin, P., Elkaduwe, D., Engelhardt, K., Kolanski, R., Norrish, M., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 22nd symposium on Operating systems principles · doi:10.1145/1629575.1629596 · Cited by 1,633
An integrated experimental environment for distributed systems and networks
White, B., Lepreau, J., Stoller, L. B., Ricci, R., Guruprasad, S., Newbold, M., Hibler, M., Barb, C., & Joglekar, A. A. (2002) · ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review · doi:10.1145/844128.844152 · Cited by 1,302
An empirical study of the reliability of UNIX utilities
Miller, B. P., Fredriksen, L., & So, B. (1990) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/96267.96279 · Cited by 1,281
Formal verification of a realistic compiler
Leroy, X. (2009) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1538788.1538814 · Cited by 1,187
Encyclopedia of Software Engineering
(2002) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0471028959 · Cited by 1,161
Simplifying and isolating failure-inducing input
Zeller, A., & Hildebrandt, R. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.988498 · Cited by 1,079
An experimental evaluation of the assumption of independence in multiversion programming
Knight, J. C., & Leveson, N. G. (1986) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.1986.6312924 · Cited by 774
(1998) · Cited by 469
Grammar-based whitebox fuzzing
Godefroid, P., Kiezun, A., & Levin, M. Y. (2008) · Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation · doi:10.1145/1375581.1375607 · Cited by 462
HDD: hierarchical delta debugging
Misherghi, G., & Su, Z. (2006) · Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering · doi:10.1145/1134285.1134307 · Cited by 274
Cited by
Compiler validation via equivalence modulo inputs
Le, V., Afshari, M., & Su, Z. (2014) · Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation · doi:10.1145/2594291.2594334 · Cited by 388
Brubaker, C., Jana, S., Ray, B., Khurshid, S., & Shmatikov, V. (2014) · 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/sp.2014.15 · Cited by 218
Automated conformance testing for JavaScript engines via deep compiler fuzzing
Ye, G., Tang, Z., Tan, S. H., Huang, S., Fang, D., Sun, X., Bian, L., Wang, H., & Wang, Z. (2021) · Proceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation · doi:10.1145/3453483.3454054 · Cited by 77
Muffin: testing deep learning libraries via neural architecture fuzzing
Gu, J., Luo, X., Zhou, Y., & Wang, X. (2022) · Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3510003.3510092 · Cited by 71
Detecting critical bugs in SMT solvers using blackbox mutational fuzzing
Mansur, M. N., Christakis, M., Wüstholz, V., & Zhang, F. (2020) · Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3368089.3409763 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, X., Chen, Y., Eide, E., & Regehr, J.
- Venue
- ACM SIGPLAN Notices
- Published
- 2011-06-04
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 283-294
- ISSN
- 0362-1340 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-1160
- OpenAlex
- W2098456636
- Cited by
- 586
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 102.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1993316.1993532
- The paper
- Yang, X., Chen, Y., Eide, E., & Regehr, J. (2011). Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers. ACM SIGPLAN Notices. https://doi.org/10.1145/1993316.1993532
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
