Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: Interpretation of random tester output

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!  OK I *think* I've closed the last bug just now.  ~14000
and counting so far with no failures.  Other reports/feedback
appreciated.   I might try to cluster this sometime this weekend.

Take care,

"Paul F. Dietz" <address@hidden> writes:

> Camm Maguire wrote:
> 
> > Paul, I want to thank you for this very helpful tool, and your
> > responsive explanations.  Of course I'm being a bit lazy as I could
> > study the code itself and answer many of my questions, but I'm short
> > on time right now.  If I might put to you one more -- I take it the
> > algorithm goes through 2000 runs looking for random failures in a
> > fashion which does not depend on what might have been found earlier in
> > the run.  The next 2000 -- are these limited to searching a subspace
> > based on errors found in the first set, or is one still covering new
> > ground in these tests as well?  When is one done boiling down errors
> > found in the first set?
> 
> All the individual random tests are independent of each other.
> 
> The user interface for this has evolved, and isn't terribly
> good.  It was mainly 'good enough' for me to use.  I should
> have it prune error cases as soon as they are found, instead
> of waiting to do them in batches.
> 
>       Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah