Comment by odyssey7

UC Berkeley: “Top-level functional equivalence requires that, for any possible set of inputs x, the two pieces of code produce the same output. … testing, or input-output (I/O) equivalence, is the default correctness metric used by the community. … It is infeasible to guarantee full top-level functional equivalence (i.e., equivalence for any value of x) with testing since this would require testing on a number of inputs so large as to be practically infinite.”

https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2025/EECS-2025-...

You can guarantee that all the cases in the code are tested. That doesn't necessarily mean that all the behaviour is tested. If two implementations use very different approaches, which happen to have different behaviour on the Mersenne primes (for deep mathematical reasons), but one of them special-cases byte values using a lookup table generated from the other, you wouldn't expect mutation testing to catch the discrepancy. Each implementation is still the local optimum as far as passing tests is concerned, and the mutation test harness wouldn't know that "disable the small integer cache" is the kind of mutation that shouldn't affect whether tests pass.

There are only 8 32-bit Mersenne primes, 4 of which are byte-valued. Fuzzing might catch the bug, if it happened to hit one of the four other 32-bit Mersenne primes (which, in many fuzzers, is more likely than a uniform distribution would suggest), but I'm sure you can imagine situations where it wouldn't.