静态分析在发现并发bug方面有多好?

Devin Kester, Martin Mwebesa, J. S. Bradbury
{"title":"静态分析在发现并发bug方面有多好?","authors":"Devin Kester, Martin Mwebesa, J. S. Bradbury","doi":"10.1109/SCAM.2010.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Detecting bugs in concurrent software is challenging due to the many different thread interleavings. Dynamic analysis and testing solutions to bug detection are often costly as they need to provide coverage of the interleaving space in addition to traditional black box or white box coverage. An alternative to dynamic analysis detection of concurrency bugs is the use of static analysis. This paper examines the use of three static analysis tools (Find Bugs, J Lint and Chord) in order to assess each tool's ability to find concurrency bugs and to identify the percentage of spurious results produced. The empirical data presented is based on an experiment involving 12 concurrent Java programs.","PeriodicalId":222204,"journal":{"name":"2010 10th IEEE Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Good is Static Analysis at Finding Concurrency Bugs?\",\"authors\":\"Devin Kester, Martin Mwebesa, J. S. Bradbury\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SCAM.2010.26\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Detecting bugs in concurrent software is challenging due to the many different thread interleavings. Dynamic analysis and testing solutions to bug detection are often costly as they need to provide coverage of the interleaving space in addition to traditional black box or white box coverage. An alternative to dynamic analysis detection of concurrency bugs is the use of static analysis. This paper examines the use of three static analysis tools (Find Bugs, J Lint and Chord) in order to assess each tool's ability to find concurrency bugs and to identify the percentage of spurious results produced. The empirical data presented is based on an experiment involving 12 concurrent Java programs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2010 10th IEEE Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2010 10th IEEE Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SCAM.2010.26\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2010 10th IEEE Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SCAM.2010.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

由于存在许多不同的线程交错,在并发软件中检测bug是具有挑战性的。缺陷检测的动态分析和测试解决方案通常是昂贵的,因为除了传统的黑盒或白盒覆盖之外,它们还需要提供交错空间的覆盖。动态分析检测并发性错误的另一种方法是使用静态分析。本文检查了三种静态分析工具(Find Bugs, J Lint和Chord)的使用情况,以便评估每个工具发现并发错误的能力,并确定产生的虚假结果的百分比。所提供的经验数据是基于一个涉及12个并发Java程序的实验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Good is Static Analysis at Finding Concurrency Bugs?
Detecting bugs in concurrent software is challenging due to the many different thread interleavings. Dynamic analysis and testing solutions to bug detection are often costly as they need to provide coverage of the interleaving space in addition to traditional black box or white box coverage. An alternative to dynamic analysis detection of concurrency bugs is the use of static analysis. This paper examines the use of three static analysis tools (Find Bugs, J Lint and Chord) in order to assess each tool's ability to find concurrency bugs and to identify the percentage of spurious results produced. The empirical data presented is based on an experiment involving 12 concurrent Java programs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Recovering the Memory Behavior of Executable Programs Encapsulating Software Platform Logic by Aspect-Oriented Programming: A Case Study in Using Aspects for Language Portability Parallel Reachability and Escape Analyses AMBIDEXTER: Practical Ambiguity Detection Evaluating Code Clone Genealogies at Release Level: An Empirical Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1