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

[Camm Maguire]

Thanks, Paul!  I've just committed some fixes that has reduced my
error rate to 1 in 54000 (and counting... ). You might want to check
it out.  I'd like to know your opinion on where this places us on the
'solidity' curve among the lisp systems.  (Or you could wait for me to
fix the one I've just found, which I believe I know how to address.)

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