On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 00:08:35 -0500 Eitan Adler <li...@eitanadler.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Jerry <freebsd.u...@seibercom.net> > wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:08:26 -0600 > > Adam Vande More <amvandem...@gmail.com> articulated: > > > >> While I agree with your point in this context, the statement "The > >> number of _UNDISCOVERED_ bugs, on the other hand, is an infinite > >> one." is false. > >> > >> http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2009/sep/microkernel_breakthrough.html > > > > It was later discovered that the software used to certify the kernel > > 100% bug-free was not itself bug-free thereby nullifying results. > > The paper "Diverse Double-Compiling" by David A Wheeler is relevant > although not strictly the same topic. It could be used to avoid this > type of issue. Even if it works it's only proving that at some level of abstraction the implementation matches a formal specification, there's still scope for higher and lower level bugs. But just because something is unknown doesn't mean it's infinite. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
