Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Wilco Dijkstra
dblp:386/7539
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0005-3429-6967ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Compilers and program optimization · 44% Concurrent programming · 44% Software testing · 13% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Compilers and program optimization
compiler correctness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Mix Testing: Specifying and Testing ABI Compatibility of C/C++ Atomics Implementations · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Concurrent programming
memory models |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Mix Testing: Specifying and Testing ABI Compatibility of C/C++ Atomics Implementations · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Software testing
compiler testing |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Mix Testing: Specifying and Testing ABI Compatibility of C/C++ Atomics Implementations · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
mix testing · 0.8differential testing · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Mix Testing: Specifying and Testing ABI Compatibility of C/C++ Atomics ImplementationsabstractThe correctness of complex software depends on the correctness of both the source code and the compilers that generate corresponding binary code. Compilers must do more than preserve the semantics of a single source file: they must ensure that generated binaries can be composed with other binaries to form a final executable. The compatibility of composition is ensured using an Application Binary Interface (ABI), which specifies details of calling conventions, exception handling, and so on. Unfortunately, there are no official ABIs for concurrent programs, so different atomics mappings, although correct in isolation, may induce bugs when composed. Indeed, today, mixing binaries generated by different compilers can lead to an erroneous resulting binary. We present mix testing : a new technique designed to find compiler bugs when the instructions of a C/C++ test are separately compiled for multiple compatible architectures and then mixed together. We define a class of compiler bugs, coined mixing bugs , that arise when parts of a program are compiled separately using different mappings from C/C++ atomic operations to assembly sequences. To demonstrate the generality of mix testing, we have designed and implemented a tool, atomic-mixer , which we have used: (a) to reproduce one existing non-mixing bug that state-of-the-art concurrency testing tools are limited to being able to find (showing that atomic-mixer at least meets the capabilities of these tools), and (b) to find four previously-unknown mixing bugs in LLVM and GCC, and one prospective mixing bug in mappings proposed for the Java Virtual Machine. Lastly, we have worked with engineers at Arm to specify, for the first time, an atomics ABI for Armv8, and have used atomic-mixer to validate the LLVM and GCC compilers against it. Luke Geeson, James Brotherston, Wilco Dijkstra, Alastair F. Donaldson, Lee Smith, Tyler Sorensen 0001, John Wickerson |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 3 |