Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2409.01161

Mix Testing: Specifying and Testing ABI Compatibility of C/C++ Atomics Implementations

Luke Geeson·James Brotherston·Wilco Dijkstra·Alastair F. Donaldson·Lee Smith·Tyler Sorensen·John Wickerson
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The 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.

Explore related subjects

cs.PL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Luke Geeson, James Brotherston, Wilco Dijkstra, Alastair F. Donaldson, Lee Smith, Tyler Sorensen, John Wickerson. 2024-09-02. Mix Testing: Specifying and Testing ABI Compatibility of C/C++ Atomics Implementations. https://doi.org/10.1145/3689727

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Multi-paradigm Logic Programming in the ${\cal E}$rgoAI System

ErgoAI is a high level, multi-paradigm logic programming language and system developed by Coherent Knowledge Systems as an enhancement of and a successor to the popular Flora-2 system. ErgoAI is oriented towards scalable knowledge representation and reasoning, and can exploit both structured knowledge as well as knowledge derived from external sources such as vector embeddings. From the start, ErgoAI (and Flora-2 before it) were designed to exploit the well-founded semantics for reasoning in a multi-paradigm environment, including object-based logic (F-logic) with non-monotonic inheritance; higher order syntax in the style of HiLog; defeasibility of rules; semantically clean transactional updates; extensive use of subgoal delay for handling unsafe queries and for better performance; and optional support for bounded rationality at a module level. Although Flora-2 programs are compiled into XSB and adopt many Prolog features, ErgoAI is altogether a different language and system. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

cs.PL↗
arXiv2026

When is LLM-Based Program Reasoning Correct? A Completion Semantics for LLM-Based Code Inference

Due to token and cognitive limits, Large Language Models (LLMs) typically perform program reasoning over incomplete code fragments/prompts rather than complete programs. Such reasoning therefore must rely on {assumptions about omitted code and context. As a result, the meaning of an inference over a program fragment is not absolute, but depends on an implicit completion model describing how the fragment may be refined into a complete program. In this paper, we introduce completion semantics for LLM-based program reasoning. We formalize incomplete programs as denoting a space of possible refinements and define the correctness of existential inferences relative to a completion model. Under this view, a reported bug is correct whenever there exists a completion within the model that witnesses the bug. This perspective explains why many LLM-generated reports are neither simply correct nor incorrect, but instead depend on assumptions about omitted context. We have instantiated our approach in the form of a witness-generation workflow that concretizes completions underlying an inference by constructing executable refinements of the original program fragment. Witnesses serve both as evidence for existential claims and as a mechanism for exposing the assumptions required to support them. We evaluate our approach on real-world LLM-generated bug reports and program-analysis tasks. Our results show that witness generation effectively distinguishes inferences supported by plausible completions from those requiring unrealistic assumptions, providing a practical mechanism for validating reasoning over incomplete programs.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2026

Opportunistic ZGC: Leveraging Idle Cores for More Effective Concurrent Garbage Collection

Managed language runtimes often provide concurrent garbage collectors so that latency-critical applications with large working sets can keep running while most collection work proceeds in the background. ZGC is a production-quality, generational, concurrent collector in OpenJDK with sub-millisecond pause times. While ZGC is designed to run concurrently, frequent and excessive collections with ZGC can still slow the mutators due to synchronization costs and interference with shared computing resources. Hence, the ZGC scheduler is conservative by default, and in most cases, will grow the heap toward the maximum allowed before scheduling a collection. While this approach minimizes collection effort, it can be wasteful, or even harmful, if the maximum heap size is not well tuned to the actual working set. We propose Opportunistic ZGC (OppZGC), a feedback-directed ZGC scheduling policy that constrains the heap dynamically and automatically, without per-application tuning. OppZGC identifies periods when CPU cores are underutilized and leverages them for concurrent collection with ZGC. We describe the design and implementation of OppZGC in OpenJDK's HotSpot Java VM and evaluate it with standard and latency-sensitive benchmarks from DaCapo Chopin and SPECjbb. OppZGC limits heap usage when there is CPU capacity sufficient for additional collections, and avoids scheduling extra collections when they would substantially degrade performance. Overall, it reduces maximum heap usage for our DaCapo benchmarks by between 61% and 90%, on average, depending on configuration, with minimal impact on throughput and request latency compared to default ZGC.

cs.PL↗