Understanding bug fix patterns in verilog

ABSTRACT

Today, many electronic systems are developed using a hardware description language, a kind of software that can be converted into integrated circuits or programmable logic devices. Like traditional software projects, hardware projects have bugs, and significant developer time is spent fixing them. A useful first step toward reducing bugs in hardware is developing an understanding of the frequency of different types of errors. Once the most common types are known, it is then possible to focus attention on eliminating them. As most hardware projects use software configuration management repositories, these can be mined for the textual bug fix changes. In this project, we analyze the bug fix history of four hardware projects written in Verilog and manually define 25 bug fix patterns. The frequency of each bug type is then computed for all projects. We find that 29 -- 55% of the bug fix pattern instances in Verilog involve assignment statements, while 18 -- 25% are related to if statements.

REFERENCES

• 1: Kai Pan , E. James Whitehead, Jr., Using evolution patterns to find duplicated bugs, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 2006
• 2: Audris Mockus , Lawrence G. Votta, Identifying Reasons for Software Changes Using Historic Databases, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'00), p.120, October 11-14, 2000
• 3: Michael Fischer , Martin Pinzger , Harald Gall, Populating a Release History Database from Version Control and Bug Tracking Systems, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, p.23, September 22-26, 2003
• 4: Davor Čubranić , Gail C. Murphy, Hipikat: recommending pertinent software development artifacts, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 03-10, 2003, Portland, Oregon
• 5: David Hovemeyer , William Pugh, Finding bugs is easy, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.39 n.12, December 2004 [doi>10.1145/1052883.1052895]
• 6: C. Artho, Finding Faults in Multi-threaded Programs, Master's Thesis, Institute of Computer Systems, Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich/Austin, 2001. JLint, http://artho.com/jlint .
• 7: Cormac Flanagan , K. Rustan M. Leino , Mark Lillibridge , Greg Nelson , James B. Saxe , Raymie Stata, Extended static checking for Java, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming language design and implementation, June 17-19, 2002, Berlin, Germany
• 8: D. Van Campenhout , H. Al-Asaad , J. P. Hayes , T. Mudge , R. B. Brown, High-level design verification of microprocessors via error modeling, ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems (TODAES), v.3 n.4, p.581-599, Oct. 1998 [doi>10.1145/296333.296347]
• 9: Eric Allen, Bug Patterns in Java, APress L. P., 2002
• 10: Roger F. Crew, ASTLOG: a language for examining abstract syntax trees, Proceedings of the Conference on Domain-Specific Languages on Conference on Domain-Specific Languages (DSL), 1997, p.18-18, October 15-17, 1997, Santa Barbara, California
• 11: Nick Rutar , Christian B. Almazan , Jeffrey S. Foster, A Comparison of Bug Finding Tools for Java, Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, p.245-256, November 02-05, 2004 [doi>10.1109/ISSRE.2004.1]
• 12: S. Sudhakrishnan, J. Madhavan, E.J. Whitehead, J. Renau. Understanding Bug Fix Patterns in Verilog Available at http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~sangeetha/papers/bug-patterns.pdf

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.4 Software/Program Verification

General Terms:
Design

Keywords:
VHDL, error classification, verilog