EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Scott Wadsworth
dblp:59/8264
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1
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 · 61% Program verification · 39% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Compilers and program optimization
compiler correctness |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Will you still compile me tomorrow? static cross-version compiler validation · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2013 |
Compilers and program optimization
compiler validation |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Will you still compile me tomorrow? static cross-version compiler validation · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2013 |
Program verification › equivalence checking
semantic equivalence checking |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Will you still compile me tomorrow? static cross-version compiler validation · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2013 |
Program verification
theorem proving |
0.0 | 1 | 2013 | Will you still compile me tomorrow? static cross-version compiler validation · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2013 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
root cause analysis · 0.2automated theorem proving · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | Will you still compile me tomorrow? static cross-version compiler validationabstractThis paper describes a cross-version compiler validator and measures its effectiveness on the CLR JIT compiler. The validator checks for semantically equivalent assembly language output from various versions of the compiler, including versions across a seven-month time period, across two architectures (x86 and ARM), across two compilation scenarios (JIT and MDIL), and across optimizations levels. For month-to-month comparisons, the validator achieves a false alarm rate of just 2.2%. To help understand reported semantic differences, the validator performs a root-cause analysis on the counterexample traces generated by the underlying automated theorem proving tools. This root-cause analysis groups most of the counterexamples into a small number of buckets, reducing the number of counterexamples analyzed by hand by anywhere from 53% to 96%. The validator ran on over 500,000 methods across a large suite of test programs, finding 12 previously unknown correctness and performance bugs in the CLR compiler. Chris Hawblitzel, Shuvendu K. Lahiri, Kshama Pawar, Hammad Hashmi, Sedar Gokbulut, Lakshan Fernando, Dave Detlefs, Scott Wadsworth |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 8 |