Qualifications of Instruction Sequence Failures, Faults and Defects: Dormant, Effective, Detected, Temporary, and Permanent

Abstract

Starting out from the survey of instruction sequence faults from [6] program faults are classified according to the conventional criteria of being dormant, effective, detected, temporary, and permanent. Being retrospectively approved is introduced as an additional qualification. For this theoretical investigation the context is simplified by contemplating instruction sequences as a theoretical model for programs, and by assuming that instruction sequences are supposed to compute total transformations on finite bit sequences of a fixed length only. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this work concerns the notion of dormancy. First of all it is noticed that the unconventional notion of a dormant failure is both plausible and amenable to a straightforward and convincing definition. The conventional notion of a dormant fault, however, is much harder to grasp and the definition of a dormant fault which is provided in the paper may be disputed. The notion of a dormant fault seems to admit no convincing intuition. All faults are defects but not the other way around. The idea of a fault exclusively depends on an instruction sequence and a specification of which it is considered to be a candidate implementation. In the presence of a design, however, in addition to faults, the notion of a deviation from design (DFD) defect arises, which constitutes a class of defects many of which are not faults. For DFD defects the notion of dormancy admits a straightforward and convincing definition.