Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Interesting paper. It sounds good until you look for the actual work. With a possibly limited amount of testing, you can't be sure of anything. In verification, you can never just trust the tools. With no code coverage numbers, how do I know how thorough the existing tests are? The tests themselves have no docs.

The torture test page said it still needed support for floating point instructions. That kinda says, they did no torture tests of floating point instructions. I wouldn't be happy with that. Same goes for loops. Etc.

You have to think about physical failures as well: the paper mentions various RAMs in the 45 nm processor. You should have BIST for those and Design For Test module/s. Otherwise you have no way to test for defects.

Yeah, that all sounds familiar from my research. Especially floating point given some famous recalls. Disturbing if it's missing. I'll try to remember to get in contact with them. Overdue on doing that anyway.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact