Nobrainer: An Example-Driven Framework for C/C++ Code Transformations

Savchenko, Valeriy V.; Sorokin, Konstantin S.; Pankratenko, Georgiy A.; Markov, S. I.; Spiridonov, A. V.; Alexandrov, Ilia; Volkov, Alexander S.; Sun, Kwangwon

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-37487-7_12

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to operating on an abstract representation of source code, a structured merge always concludes in a pretty-printing step. If the printer does not attempt to recreate the formatting of the input, it may fundamentally alter it [12], [13]. We argue that a merge tool should not alter formatting at all.…”

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…We perform a last filtering to find projects that build using MAVEN in our test environment. We look for a pom.xml file in the latest commit 13 of the default branch, indicating the use of MAVEN. If there is such a file, the project is cloned and built with MAVEN.…”

Section: Filtering Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…source code. This can fundamentally alter the formatting of the code [12], [13], which is undesirable due to the important role that formatting plays in source code readability [14]. Second, structured merge is known for being slow, with the time complexities of the underlying algorithms often being O(n 2 ) or worse [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Spork: Structured Merge for Java With Formatting Preservation

Larsen

Falleri

Baudry

et al. 2023

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The highly parallel workflows of modern software development have made merging of source code a common activity for developers. The state of the practice is based on line-based merge, which is ubiquitously used with "git merge". Line-based merge is however a generalized technique for any text that cannot leverage the structured nature of source code, making merge conflicts a common occurrence. As a remedy, research has proposed structured merge tools, which typically operate on abstract syntax trees instead of raw text. Structured merging greatly reduces the prevalence of merge conflicts but suffers from important limitations, the main ones being a tendency to alter the formatting of the merged code and being prone to excessive running times. In this paper, we present SPORK, a novel structured merge tool for JAVA. SPORK is unique as it preserves formatting to a significantly greater degree than comparable state-of-the-art tools. SPORK is also overall faster than the state of the art, in particular significantly reducing worst-case running times in practice. We demonstrate these properties by replaying 1740 real-world file merges collected from 119 open-source projects, and further demonstrate several key differences between SPORK and the state of the art with in-depth case studies.

show abstract

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Filtering Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spork: Structured Merge for Java With Formatting Preservation

Larsen

Falleri

Baudry

et al. 2023

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A different approach to API migration is to use expert knowledge to encode migration patterns by hand, then compile them to a searchable representation to perform migrations. This approach is taken by tools like ReFaster (Java) [53] and No-Brainer (C / C++) [43]; they permit complex migrations but require experts to create the migration patterns initially. Similarly, IDL [21] implements migrations of computational "idioms" to target heterogeneous computing platforms.…”

Section: Expert-drivenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these approaches require large training sets and are imprecise with respect to program semantics. A more precise (but less automatic) approach is to use expert knowledge to encode known migration patterns [43,53].…”

Section: Introduction 1api Migrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

M ³

Collie

Ginsbach²,

Woodruff

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Library migration is a challenging problem, where most existing approaches rely on prior knowledge. This can be, for example, information derived from changelogs or statistical models of API usage.This paper addresses a different API migration scenario where there is no prior knowledge of the target library. We have no historical changelogs and no access to its internal representation. To tackle this problem, this paper proposes a novel approach (M 3 ), where probabilistic program synthesis is used to semantically model the behavior of library functions. Then, we use an SMT-based code search engine to discover similar code in user applications. These discovered instances provide potential locations for API migrations.We evaluate our approach against 7 well-known libraries from varied application domains, learning correct implementations for 94 functions. Our approach is integrated with standard compiler tooling, and we use this integration to evaluate migration opportunities in 9 existing C/C++ applications with over 1MLoC. We discover over 7,000 instances of these functions, of which more than 2,000 represent migration opportunities. CCS CONCEPTS• Software and its engineering → Software maintenance tools; Software verification and validation; Compilers.

show abstract