Compiler testing: a systematic literature analysis

Abstract

Compilers are widely-used infrastructures in accelerating the software development, and expected to be trustworthy. In the literature, various testing technologies have been proposed to guarantee the quality of compilers. However, there remains an obstacle to comprehensively characterize and understand compiler testing. To overcome this obstacle, we propose a literature analysis framework to gain insights into the compiler testing area. First, we perform an extensive search to construct a dataset related to compiler testing papers. Then, we conduct a bibliometric analysis to analyze the productive authors, the influential papers, and the frequently tested compilers based on our dataset. Finally, we utilize association rules and collaboration networks to mine the authorships and the communities of interests among researchers and keywords. Some valuable results are reported. We find that the USA is the leading country that contains the most influential researchers and institutions. The most active keyword is “random testing”. We also find that most researchers have broad interests within small-scale collaborators in the compiler testing area.

Keywords

software engineering / compiler-theory and techniques / literature analysis / collaboration network / bibliometric analysis

References

[1] Howard M. A process for performing security code reviews. IEEE Security and Privacy, 2006, 4(4): 74–79

[2] Pearse T, Oman P. Maintainability measurements on industrial source code maintenance activities. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance. 1995, 295–303

[3] Sun C, Le V, Zhang Q, Su Z. Toward understanding compiler bugs in GCC and LLVM. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 2016, 294–305

[4] Sun C, Le V, Su Z. Finding and analyzing compiler warning defects. In: Proceedings of the 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering. 2016, 203–213

[5] Le V, Afshari M, Su Z. Compiler validation via equivalence modulo inputs. In: Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 2014, 216–226

[6] Yang X, Chen Y, Eide E, Regehr J. Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 2011, 283–294

[7] Chen J, Hu W, Hao D, Xiong Y, Zhang H, Lu Z, Xie B. An empirical comparison of compiler testing techniques. In: Proceedings of the 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering. 2016, 180–190

[8] Lidbury C, Lascu A, Chong N, Donaldson A F. Many-core compiler fuzzing. In: Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 2015, 65–76

[9] Sheridan F. Practical testing of a C99 compiler using output comparison. Software: Practice and Experience, 2007, 37(14): 1475–1488

[10] Nagai E, Hashimoto A, Ishiura N. Reinforcing random testing of arithmetic optimization of C compilers by scaling up size and number of expressions. IPSJ Transactions on System LSI Design Methodology, 2014, 7(4): 91–100

[11] Chen Y, Groce A, Zhang C, Wong W K, Fern X, Eide E, Regehr J. Taming compiler fuzzers. In: Proceedings of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 2013, 197–208

[12] Regehr J, Chen Y, Cuoq P, Eide E, Ellison C, Yang X. Test-case reduction for C compiler bugs. In: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 2012, 335–346

[13] Lindig C. Find a compiler bug in 5 minutes. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 2005, 79(4): 387–396

[14] Lindig C. Random testing of C calling conventions. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Automated Analysis-Driven Debugging. 2005, 3–12

[15] Eide E, Regehr J. Volatiles are miscompiled, and what to do about it. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software. 2008, 255–264

[16] Zhao C, Xue Y, Tao Q, Guo L, Wang Z. Automated test program generation for an industrial optimizing compiler. In: Proceedings of ICSE Workshop on Automation of Software Test. 2009, 36–43

[17] McKeeman W M. Differential testing for software. Digital Technical Journal, 1998, 10(1): 100–107

[18] Le V, Sun C, Su Z. Randomized stress-testing of link-time optimizers. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 2015, 327–337

[19] Hariri F, Shi A, Converse H, Khurshid S, Marinov D. Evaluating the effects of compiler optimizations on mutation testing at the compiler ir level. In: Proceedings of the 27th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. 2016, 105–115

[20] Tao Q, Wu W, Zhao C, Shen W. An automatic testing approach for compiler based on metamorphic testing technique. In: Proceedings of the 17th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference. 2010, 270–279

[21] Donaldson A F, Lascu A. Metamorphic testing for (graphics) compilers. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Metamorphic Testing. 2016, 44–47

[22] Pflanzer M, Donaldson A F, Lascu A. Automatic test case reduction for opencl. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on OpenCL. 2016, 1–12

[23] Ren Z, Jiang H, Xuan J, Yang Z. Automated localization for unreproducible builds. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2018, 71–81

[24] Jiang H, Li X, Yang Z, Xuan J. What causes my test alarm? Automatic cause analysis for test alarms in system and integration testing. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2017, 712–723

[25] Celentano A, Reghizzi S C, Vigna P D, Ghezzi C, Granata G, Savoretti F. Compiler testing using a sentence generator. Software: Practice and Experience, 1980, 10(11): 897–918

[26] Boujarwah A S, Saleh K, Al-Dallal J. Testing syntax and semantic coverage of Java language compilers. Information and Software Technology, 1999, 41(1): 15–28

[27] Chae H S, Woo G, Kim T Y, Bae J H, Kim W Y. An automated approach to reducing test suites for testing retargeted C compilers for embedded systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 2011, 84(12): 2053–2064

[28] Wu M Y, Fox G C. A test suite approach for Fortran90D compilers on MIMD distributed memory parallel computers. In: Proceedings of Scalable High Performance Computing Conference. 1992, 393–400

[29] Kalinov A, Kossatchev A, Posypkin M, Shishkov V. Using ASM specification for automatic test suite generation for mpC parallel programming language compiler. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Action Semantic. 2002, 99–109

[30] Zhang Q, Sun C, Su Z. Skeletal program enumeration for rigorous compiler testing. In: Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 2017, 347–361

[31] Barr E T, Harman M, McMinn P, Shahbaz M, Yoo S. The oracle problem in software testing: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2015, 41(5): 507–525

[32] Leroy X. Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Communications of the ACM, 2009, 52(7): 107–115

[33] Kong W, Liu L, Ando T, Yatsu H, Hisazumi K, Fukuda A. Facilitating multicore bounded model checking with stateless explicit-state exploration. The Computer Journal, 2014, 58(11): 2824–2840

[34] Le V, Sun C, Su Z. Finding deep compiler bugs via guided stochastic program mutation. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications. 2015, 50(10): 386–399

[35] Sun C, Le V, Su Z. Finding compiler bugs via live code mutation. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications. 2016, 849–863

[36] Mei H, Hao D, Zhang L, Zhang L, Zhou J, Rothermel G. A static approach to prioritizing junit test cases. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2012, 38(6): 1258–1275

[37] Chen J, Bai Y, Hao D, Xiong Y, Zhang H, Xie B. Learning to prioritize test programs for compiler testing. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2017, 700–711

[38] Li X, Jiang H, Liu D, Ren Z, Li G. Unsupervised deep bug report summarization. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Program Comprehension. 2018, 144–155

[39] Nagai E, Awazu H, Ishiura N, Takeda N. Random testing of C compilers targeting arithmetic optimization. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Synthesis and System Integration of Mixed Information Technologies. 2012, 48–53

[40] Garousi V, Mesbah A, Betin-Can A, Mirshokraie S. A systematic mapping study of Web application testing. Information and Software Technology, 2013, 55(8): 1374–1396

[41] Kanewala U, Bieman J M. Testing scientific software: a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 2014, 56(10): 1219–1232

[42] Mihalcea R, Tarau P. Textrank: bringing order into text. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2004, 404–411

[43] Balcerzak B, Jaworski W, Wierzbicki A. Application of TextRank algorithm for credibility assessment. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT). 2014, 451–454

[44] Rahman M M, Roy C K. TextRank based search term identification for software change tasks. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering. 2015, 540–544

[45] Holsapple C W, Johnson L E, Manakyan H, Tanner J. Business computing research journals: a normalized citation analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1994, 11(1): 131–140

[46] Mcclure C R. Foundations of library and information science. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 1998, 24(6): 491–492

[47] Blondel V D, Guillaume J L, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008, 2008(10): 10008–10020

[48] Agrawal R, Srikant R. Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. 1994, 487–499

[49] Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2009, 361–362

[50] Jacomy M, Venturini T, Heymann S, Bastian M. ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. Public Library of Science One, 2014, 9(6): e98679

[51] Su H N, Lee P C. Mapping knowledge structure by keyword cooccurrence: a first look at journal papers in technology foresight. Scientometrics, 2010, 85(1): 65–79

[52] Mei H, Zhang L. Can big data bring a breakthrough for software automation. Science China (Information Sciences), 2018, 61(5): 056101

[53] Lattner C, Adve V. LLVM: a compilation framework for lifelong program analysis and transformation. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization: Feedback-directed and Runtime Optimization. 2004, 75–86

[54] Zelenov S, Zelenova S. Model-based testing of optimizing compilers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Testing of Software and Communicating Systems. 2007, 365–377

[55] Chen J, Bai Y, Hao D, Xiong Y, Zhang H, Zhang L, Xie B. Test case prioritization for compilers: a text-vector based approach. In: Proceedings of 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. 2016, 266–277

[56] Woo G, Chae H S, Jang H. An intermediate representation approach to reducing test suites for retargeted compilers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Reliable Software Technologies. 2007, 100–113

[57] Wohlin C. An analysis of the most cited articles in software engineering journals — 1999. Information and Software Technology, 2005, 47(15): 957–964

[58] Wohlin C. An analysis of the most cited articles in software engineering journals — 2000. Information and Software Technology, 2007, 49(1): 2–11

[59] Wohlin C. An analysis of the most cited articles in software engineering journals — 2001. Information and Software Technology, 2008, 50(1–2): 3–9

[60] Wohlin C. An analysis of the most cited articles in software engineering journals — 2002. Information and Software Technology, 2009, 50(1): 3–6

[61] Wong W E, Tse T H, Glass R L, Basili V R, Chen T Y. An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2001— 2005). Journal of Systems and Software, 2008, 81(6): 1059–1062

[62] Wong W E, Tse T H, Glass R L, Basili V R, Chen T Y. An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2002— 2006). Journal of Systems and Software, 2009, 82(8): 1370–1373

[63] Wong W E, Tse T H, Glass R L, Basili V R, Chen T Y. An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2003— 2007 and 2004—2008). Journal of Systems and Software, 2011, 84(1): 162–168

[64] Freitas F G, Souza J T. Ten years of search based software engineering: a bibliometric analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Search Based Software Engineering. 2011, 18–32

[65] Jiang H, Chen X, Zhang J, Han X, Xu X. Mining software repositories: contributors and hot topics. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 2016, 53(12): 2768–2782

[66] Garousi V, Ruhe G. A bibliometric/geographic assessment of 40 years of software engineering research (1969—2009). International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2013, 23(9): 1343–1366

[67] Garousi V, Fernandes J M. Highly-cited papers in software engineering: the top-100. Information and Software Technology, 2016, 71(3): 108–128

[68] Velden T, Haque A, Lagoze C. A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks: mesoscopic analysis and interpretation. Scientometrics, 2010, 85(1): 219–242

[69] Madaan G, Jolad S. Evolution of scientific collaboration networks. In: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE International Conference on Big Data. 2014, 7–13

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2019 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature