{"title":"评估静态分析的不精确性","authors":"A. Rountev, S. Kagan, Michael Gibas","doi":"10.1145/996821.996829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work discusses two non-traditional approaches for evaluating the imprecision of static analysis. The approaches are based on proofs of feasibility or infeasibility that are constructed manually by the experimenters. We also describe our initial experience with these techniques.","PeriodicalId":318802,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the imprecision of static analysis\",\"authors\":\"A. Rountev, S. Kagan, Michael Gibas\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/996821.996829\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This work discusses two non-traditional approaches for evaluating the imprecision of static analysis. The approaches are based on proofs of feasibility or infeasibility that are constructed manually by the experimenters. We also describe our initial experience with these techniques.\",\"PeriodicalId\":318802,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/996821.996829\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/996821.996829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This work discusses two non-traditional approaches for evaluating the imprecision of static analysis. The approaches are based on proofs of feasibility or infeasibility that are constructed manually by the experimenters. We also describe our initial experience with these techniques.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
