Comparative Language Fuzz Testing
Programming languages vs. fat fingers: what compilers and interpreters do when their input is randomly corrupted.
2012DatasetPLATEAU 2012
Take a correct program, corrupt it the way a person would — a mistyped character, a transposition — and feed it back to the compiler. The question is what the language does next: refuse it, or accept it as a different, valid program that quietly does the wrong thing. A language whose typos usually still compile is a language whose typos reach production.
The repository holds the fuzzing harness and the paper's sources. Joint work with Diomidis Spinellis, presented at PLATEAU 2012 (SPLASH), and licensed under Apache 2.0; the paper is on this site.