Verification & Validation of Code Generators

Composing code generators for C&C ADLs with Application-specific behavior languages (tool demonstration)

ACM SIGPLAN Notices ◽

10.1145/2936314.2814224 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 51 (3) ◽

pp. 113-116

Author(s):

Jan Oliver Ringert ◽

Bernhard Rumpe ◽

Andreas Wortmann

Keyword(s):

Specific Behavior ◽

Code Generators ◽

Application Specific

Download Full-text

Hamming Code Generators using LTEx Module of Quantum-dot Cellular Automata

2019 Devices for Integrated Circuit (DevIC) ◽

10.1109/devic.2019.8783545 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Chiradeep Mukherjee ◽

Saradindu Panda ◽

Bansibadan Maji ◽

Asish Kumar Mukhopadhyay

Keyword(s):

Cellular Automata ◽

Quantum Dot ◽

Hamming Code ◽

Quantum Dot Cellular Automata ◽

Code Generators

Download Full-text

Automatic Test Generation for Model-Based Code Generators

Second International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation (isola 2006) ◽

10.1109/isola.2006.70 ◽

2006 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Sergey V. Zelenov ◽

Denis V. Silakov ◽

Alexander K. Petrenko ◽

Mirko Conrad ◽

Ines Fey

Keyword(s):

Test Generation ◽

Automatic Test Generation ◽

Automatic Test ◽

Model Based ◽

Code Generators

Download Full-text

Extracting instruction semantics via symbolic execution of code generators

Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering - FSE 2016 ◽

10.1145/2950290.2950335 ◽

2016 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Niranjan Hasabnis ◽

R. Sekar

Keyword(s):

Symbolic Execution ◽

Code Generators

Download Full-text

PRESSURE AMPLITUDES OF SEISMIC SIGNALS IN OFFSHORE LOUISIANA

Geophysics ◽

10.1190/1.1440711 ◽

1977 ◽

Vol 42 (1) ◽

pp. 3-16

Author(s):

M. E. Arnold

Keyword(s):

Field Tests ◽

Signal Amplitude ◽

Test Area ◽

Seismic Signals ◽

Code Generators ◽

Single Detector ◽

First Arrival ◽

Reflected Signal ◽

Refracted Waves ◽

Seismic Lines

Pressure amplitudes were determined for various kinds of seismic signals observed on special test records obtained during field tests conducted along a 14,000-ft seismic lines in Eugene Island Block 184, offshore Louisiana. Vibrators attached to a Seismograph Service Corp. (SSC) boat generated swept‐frequency and monofrequency signals. Signals from detectors on a streamer cable towed by the boat were recorded by an SSC recording system. Signals from a vertical spread of detectors were recorded by a DFS/9000 recorder on the Transco 184 platform centrally located in the test area. Location of the boat was determined by analysis of time relations of signals from responders located at established positions some distance from the test area. Clock times from manually referenced timing code generators were recorded by both the SSC and DFS recorders to permit synchronization between separately recorded signals. The signals analyzed were separated into three classes: [Formula: see text] includes direct and refracted waves; [Formula: see text] consists of primary reflections; and [Formula: see text] includes signals diffracted from scatterers. The average level of first‐arrival signal [Formula: see text] and reflected signal [Formula: see text] for frequency sets 25, 40, 42.2, 50, and 70.4 Hz in the range of 1414 and 2143 ft, which encompasses streamer cable single‐detector groups, is 337 and 29.6 microbars, respectively. The amplitude of signals [Formula: see text], believed to be diffracted from the contact between key reflectors and a salt dome, ranges from 13 to 20 microbars and is 10 to 100 times the amplitudes of towing and ambient noise, respectively. The observed decay of first‐arrival signal amplitude is approximately proportional to the square root of range distance, or about 2 dB/1000 ft. The observed decay of reflected signal amplitude with range distance is approximately 1 dB/1000 ft.

Download Full-text