Biblio

Static analysis tools help to detect common pro-gramming errors but generate a large number of false positives. Moreover, when applied to evolving software systems, around 95 % of alarms generated on a version are repeated, i.e., they have also been generated on the previous version. Version-aware static analysis techniques (VSATs) have been proposed to suppress the repeated alarms that are not impacted by the code changes between the two versions. The alarms reported by VSATs after the suppression, called delta alarms, still constitute 63% of the tool-generated alarms. We observe that delta alarms can be further postprocessed using their corresponding code changes: the code changes due to which VSATs identify them as delta alarms. However, none of the existing VSATs or alarms postprocessing techniques postprocesses delta alarms using the corresponding code changes. Based on this observation, we use the code changes to classify delta alarms into six classes that have different priorities assigned to them. The assignment of priorities is based on the type of code changes and their likelihood of actually impacting the delta alarms. The ranking of alarms, obtained by prioritizing the classes, can help suppress alarms that are ranked lower, when resources to inspect all the tool-generated alarms are limited. We performed an empirical evaluation using 9789 alarms generated on 59 versions of seven open source C applications. The evaluation results indicate that the proposed classification and ranking of delta alarms help to identify, on average, 53 % of delta alarms as more likely to be false positives than the others.

Static analysis tools generate a large number of alarms that require manual inspection. In prior work, repositioning of alarms is proposed to (1) merge multiple similar alarms together and replace them by a fewer alarms, and (2) report alarms as close as possible to the causes for their generation. The premise is that the proposed merging and repositioning of alarms will reduce the manual inspection effort. To evaluate the premise, this paper presents an empirical study with 249 developers on the proposed merging and repositioning of static alarms. The study is conducted using static analysis alarms generated on \$C\$ programs, where the alarms are representative of the merging vs. non-merging and repositioning vs. non-repositioning situations in real-life code. Developers were asked to manually inspect and determine whether assertions added corresponding to alarms in \$C\$ code hold. Additionally, two spatial cognitive tests are also done to determine relationship in performance. The empirical evaluation results indicate that, in contrast to expectations, there was no evidence that merging and repositioning of alarms reduces manual inspection effort or improves the inspection accuracy (at times a negative impact was found). Results on cognitive abilities correlated with comprehension and alarm inspection accuracy.