An empirical study of the effect of semantic differences on programmer comprehension

Proceedings - IEEE Workshop on Program Comprehension

Volumn 2002-January, Issue , 2002, Pages 97-106

  Binkley, D ^a  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Computational modeling; Control systems; Debugging; Educational institutions; Fault diagnosis; Maintenance engineering; Programming profession; Runtime; Software maintenance; Software testing

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER DEBUGGING; COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE; CONTROL SYSTEMS; FAILURE ANALYSIS; FAULT DETECTION; MAINTAINABILITY; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; PROGRAM DEBUGGING; PROGRAM DIAGNOSTICS; SEMANTICS; SOFTWARE TESTING;

COMPUTATIONAL MODEL; CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT; DIFFERENCING ALGORITHM; EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS; PROGRAM COMPREHENSION; PROGRAMMING PROFESSION; RUNTIMES; SEMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS;

C (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE);

EID: 84948707270     PISSN: 10928138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/WPC.2002.1021327     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Binkley, D., "Using semantic differencing to reduce the cost of regression testing," pp. 41-50 in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, (Orlando, FL, Nov, 1992), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1992).
2. Binkley, D., "Precise executable interprocedural slices," ACM Letters on Pro gramming Languages and Systems 2(1-4) pp. 31-45 (1993).
3. Binkley, D., Horwitz, S., and Reps, T., "Program Integration for Languages with Procedure Calls," ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 4(1) pp. 3-35 (January 1995).
4. Binkley, D., "Semantics guided regression test cost reduction," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(8) pp. 489-516 IEEE Computer Society, (August 1997).
5. Binkley, D., Capellini, R., Raszewski, L., and Smith, C., "An implementation of and experiment with semantic differencing," In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, (Florence, Italy), pp. 82-91 (November 2001).
6. Clarke, E.M., Fujita, M., Rajan, S.P., Reps, T., Shankar, S., and Teitelbaum, T., "Program slicing of hardware description languages," Conference on Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods, pp. 298-312 (1999).
7. Francel, M. and Rugaber, S., "The relationship of slicing and debugging to program understanding," Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 106-113 (5-7 May 1999).
8. Grammatech Inc., http://www.grammatech.com/products/codesurfer/codesurfer.html. 1999.
9. Horwitz, S., "Identifying the semantic and textual differences between two versions of a program," Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 90 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, (White Plains, NY, June 20-22, 1990), ACM SIGPLAN Notices 25(6) pp. 234-245 (June 1989).
10. Horwitz, S., Reps, T., and Binkley, D., "Interprocedural slicing using dependence graphs," ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 12(1) pp. 26-60 (January 1990).
11. Horwitz, S. and Reps, T., "Efficient comparison of program slices," TR-982, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (December, 1990).
12. Lyle, J.R. and Gallagher, K.B., "A Program Decomposition Scheme with Applications to Software Modifications and Testing," Proceedings of the 22nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciencea (Volume II, software track), pp. 479-485 (January 1989).
13. Podgurski, A. and Clarke, L.A., "A formal model of program dependences and its implications for software testing, debugging, and maintenance," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16(9)(September 1990).