2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering 2009
DOI: 10.1109/icse.2009.5070515
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accurate Interprocedural Null-Dereference Analysis for Java

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
87
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(88 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
87
1
Order By: Relevance
“…contradict) the hypotheses. In contrast, previous approaches such as Xylem [15] and Salsa [13] are not able to take advantage of path-sensitive aliasing relationships as deeply as we do.…”
Section: Strong Updates In the Presence Of Aliasingcontrasting
confidence: 44%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…contradict) the hypotheses. In contrast, previous approaches such as Xylem [15] and Salsa [13] are not able to take advantage of path-sensitive aliasing relationships as deeply as we do.…”
Section: Strong Updates In the Presence Of Aliasingcontrasting
confidence: 44%
“…Ours is a verification approach to efficiently find a superset of all potential null-dereference sites; this is in contrast with bug-finding approaches [11,15], that may miss bugs (and also report false positives). Our approach complements precise, expensive, and incomplete approaches such as Snugglebug [3] that attempt to find a concrete input to a program that disproves a desired safety property, in that these approaches could be used to try to validate our bug reports.…”
Section: Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The approaches of Xylem [15], Salsa [13] and Spoto [19] are the most closely related approaches to ours, in the sense that they target null-dereference analysis of real Java programs. We discuss these approaches in detail first, and later give an overview of other related techniques.…”
Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The burden of annotating code with qualifiers is a major obstacle to the adoption of qualifier systems. Realizing the burden of adding qualifiers, researchers have developed myriad qualifier inference tools [5], [9], [11]- [13], [18], [20], [21], [21]- [23], [26], [30], [34], [37], [38], [40]. These tools employ static analysis, dynamic analysis, or a combination of the two.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%