ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Memory slicing
Full text PdfPdf (550 KB)
Source
International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis archive
Proceedings of the eighteenth international symposium on Software testing and analysis table of contents
Chicago, IL, USA
SESSION: Fault localization table of contents
Pages 165-176  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-338-9
Authors
Bin Xin  Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Xiangyu Zhang  Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Sponsors
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): n/a,   Downloads (12 Months): n/a,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1572272.1572292
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Traditional dynamic program slicing techniques are code-centric, meaning dependences are introduced between executed statement instances, which gives rise to various problems such as space requirement is decided by execution length; dependence graphs are highly redundant so that inspecting them is labor intensive. In this paper, we propose a data-centric dynamic slicing technique, in which dependences are introduced between memory locations. Doing so, the space complexity is bounded by memory footprint instead of execution length. Moreover, presenting dependences between memory locations is often more desirable for human inspection during debugging as redundant dependences are suppressed. Our evaluation shows that the proposed technique supersedes traditional dynamic slicing techniques in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
2
 
3
 
4
5
 
6
Diablo binary rewriting framework. http://www.elis.ugent.be/diablo/.
7
8
 
9
 
10
J. Lind-Nielsen. BuDDy, a binary decision diagram package. http://buddy.sourceforge.net.
 
11
S. Lu, Z. Li, F. Qin, L. Tan, P. Zhou, and Y. Zhou. Bugbench: a benchmark for evaluating bug detection tools. In Workshop on the Evaluation of Software Defect Detection Tools, Chicago, Illinois, 2005.
12
 
13
 
14
F. Tip. A Survey of Program Slicing Techniques. In Journal of Program Languages, 121--189, 1995.
15
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
J. Whaley and D. Avots and M. Carbin and M. S. Lam. Using Datalog with Binary Decision Diagrams for Program Analysis. In Proceedings of Programming Languages and Systems: Third Asian Symposium, 2005.
20
 
21
 
22
 
23