TL;DR: An algorithm that can fix a bug that has been identified, and integrate it with the diagnosis algorithms to form an interactive debugging system that can debug programs that are too complex for the Model Inference System to synthesize.
Abstract: The thesis lays a theoretical framework for program debugging, with the goal of partly mechanizing this activity. In particular, we formalize and develop algorithmic solutions to the following two questions: (1) How do we identify a bug in a program that behaves incorrectly? (2) How do we fix a bug, once one is identified?
We develop interactive diagnosis algorithms that identify a bug in a program that behaves incorrectly, and implement them in Prolog for the diagnosis of Prolog programs. Their performance suggests that they can be the backbone of debugging aids that go far beyond what is offered by current programming environments.
We develop an inductive inference algorithm that synthesizes logic programs from examples of their behavior. The algorithm incorporates the diagnosis algorithms as a component. It is incremental, and progresses by debugging a program with respect to the examples. The Model Inference System is a Prolog implementation of the algorithm. Its range of applications and efficiency is comparable to existing systems for program synthesis from examples and grammatical inference.
We develop an algorithm that can fix a bug that has been identified, and integrate it with the diagnosis algorithms to form an interactive debugging system. By restricting the class of bugs we attempt to correct, the system can debug programs that are too complex for the Model Inference System to synthesize.
TL;DR: The overall goal of this research is to investigate how developers use and benefit from automated debugging tools through a set of human studies by providing initial evidence that several assumptions made by automated debugging techniques do not hold in practice.
Abstract: Debugging is notoriously difficult and extremely time consuming. Researchers have therefore invested a considerable amount of effort in developing automated techniques and tools for supporting various debugging tasks. Although potentially useful, most of these techniques have yet to demonstrate their practical effectiveness. One common limitation of existing approaches, for instance, is their reliance on a set of strong assumptions on how developers behave when debugging (e.g., the fact that examining a faulty statement in isolation is enough for a developer to understand and fix the corresponding bug). In more general terms, most existing techniques just focus on selecting subsets of potentially faulty statements and ranking them according to some criterion. By doing so, they ignore the fact that understanding the root cause of a failure typically involves complex activities, such as navigating program dependencies and rerunning the program with different inputs. The overall goal of this research is to investigate how developers use and benefit from automated debugging tools through a set of human studies. As a first step in this direction, we perform a preliminary study on a set of developers by providing them with an automated debugging tool and two tasks to be performed with and without the tool. Our results provide initial evidence that several assumptions made by automated debugging techniques do not hold in practice. Through an analysis of the results, we also provide insights on potential directions for future work in the area of automated debugging.
TL;DR: The Whyline is a prototype Interrogative Debugging interface for the Alice programming environment that visualizes answers in terms of runtime events directly relevant to a programmer's question.
Abstract: Debugging is still among the most common and costly of programming activities. One reason is that current debugging tools do not directly support the inquisitive nature of the activity. Interrogative Debugging is a new debugging paradigm in which programmers can ask why did and even why didn't questions directly about their program's runtime failures. The Whyline is a prototype Interrogative Debugging interface for the Alice programming environment that visualizes answers in terms of runtime events directly relevant to a programmer's question. Comparisons of identical debugging scenarios from user tests with and without the Whyline showed that the Whyline reduced debugging time by nearly a factor of 8, and helped programmers complete 40% more tasks.
TL;DR: Substituted phenol/epichlorohydrin/amine adducts as multipurpose, low concentration additives for hydrocarbon fuels, lubricating oils and mixtures thereof.
Abstract: Operating systems are difficult to debug with traditional cyclic debugging. They are non-deterministic; they run for long periods of time; they interact directly with hard-ware devices; and their state is easily perturbed by the act of debugging. This paper describes a time-traveling virtual machine that overcomes many of the difficulties associated with debugging operating systems. Time travel enables a programmer to navigate backward and forward arbitrarily through the execution history of a particular run and to replay arbitrary segments of the past execution. We integrate time travel into a general-purpose debugger to enable a programmer to debug an OS in reverse, implementing commands such as reverse breakpoint, reverse watchpoint, and reverse single step. The space and time overheads needed to support time travel are reasonable for debugging, and movements in time are fast enough to support interactive debugging. We demonstrate the value of our time-traveling virtual machine by using it to understand and fix several OS bugs that are difficult to find with standard debugging tools. Reverse debugging is especially helpful in finding bugs that are fragile due to non-determinism, bugs in device drivers, bugs that require long runs to trigger, bugs that corrupt the stack, and bugs that are detected after the relevant stack frame is popped.
TL;DR: It is found that even well tested code written by experts contains a surprising number of obvious bugs, and that simple automatic techniques can be effective at countering the impact of both ordinary mistakes and misunderstood language features.
Abstract: Many techniques have been developed over the years to automatically find bugs in software. Often, these techniques rely on formal methods and sophisticated program analysis. While these techniques are valuable, they can be difficult to apply, and they aren't always effective in finding real bugs.Bug patterns are code idioms that are often errors. We have implemented automatic detectors for a variety of bug patterns found in Java programs. In this paper, we describe how we have used bug pattern detectors to find serious bugs in several widely used Java applications and libraries. We have found that the effort required to implement a bug pattern detector tends to be low, and that even extremely simple detectors find bugs in real applications.From our experience applying bug pattern detectors to real programs, we have drawn several interesting conclusions. First, we have found that even well tested code written by experts contains a surprising number of obvious bugs. Second, Java (and similar languages) have many language features and APIs which are prone to misuse. Finally, that simple automatic techniques can be effective at countering the impact of both ordinary mistakes and misunderstood language features.