Automatic Bug Fixing

2015 16th International Workshop on Microprocessor and SOC Test and Verification (MTV) Pub Date : 2015-12-01 DOI:10.1109/MTV.2015.21

Daniel Hansson

{"title":"Automatic Bug Fixing","authors":"Daniel Hansson","doi":"10.1109/MTV.2015.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several EDA tools automate the debug process1,2 or part of the debug process3,4. The result is less manual work and bugs are fixed faster5. However, the actual process of fixing the bugs and committing the fixes to the revision control system is still a manual process. In this paper we explore how to automate that last step: automate bug fixing. First we discuss how the automatic bug fix flow should work. We implemented the automatic bug fixing mechanism into our existing automatic debug tool1 and ran an internal trial. Then we list the various issues that we learned from this experience and how to avoid them. Our conclusion is that automatic bug fixing, i.e. the art of automatically modifying the code in order to make a failing test pass, is very useful, but it is done best locally, i.e. the fix should not be committed. Instead a bug report should be issued to the engineers who made the bad commits and let them take action. Automatically committing the identified fix is very simple (unlike the analysis that leads to the fix), but it this leads to a list of issues such as human-tool race conditions, fault oscillation and removal of partial implementations.","PeriodicalId":273432,"journal":{"name":"2015 16th International Workshop on Microprocessor and SOC Test and Verification (MTV)","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2015 16th International Workshop on Microprocessor and SOC Test and Verification (MTV)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/MTV.2015.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Several EDA tools automate the debug process1,2 or part of the debug process3,4. The result is less manual work and bugs are fixed faster5. However, the actual process of fixing the bugs and committing the fixes to the revision control system is still a manual process. In this paper we explore how to automate that last step: automate bug fixing. First we discuss how the automatic bug fix flow should work. We implemented the automatic bug fixing mechanism into our existing automatic debug tool1 and ran an internal trial. Then we list the various issues that we learned from this experience and how to avoid them. Our conclusion is that automatic bug fixing, i.e. the art of automatically modifying the code in order to make a failing test pass, is very useful, but it is done best locally, i.e. the fix should not be committed. Instead a bug report should be issued to the engineers who made the bad commits and let them take action. Automatically committing the identified fix is very simple (unlike the analysis that leads to the fix), but it this leads to a list of issues such as human-tool race conditions, fault oscillation and removal of partial implementations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

自动修复Bug

一些EDA工具自动化调试过程1,2或部分调试过程3,4。其结果是减少了手工工作，bug修复得更快5。然而，修复bug并将修复提交到修订控制系统的实际过程仍然是一个手动过程。在本文中，我们将探讨如何自动化最后一步:自动化bug修复。首先，我们讨论自动错误修复流程应该如何工作。我们在现有的自动调试工具中实现了自动bug修复机制1，并进行了内部试验。然后我们列出了我们从这次经历中学到的各种问题，以及如何避免这些问题。我们的结论是，自动bug修复，即自动修改代码以使失败的测试通过的艺术，是非常有用的，但它最好在本地完成，即修复不应该提交。相反，应该向提交错误提交的工程师发布错误报告，让他们采取行动。自动提交确定的修复非常简单(与导致修复的分析不同)，但是如果这会导致一系列问题，例如人-工具竞争条件、故障振荡和部分实现的删除。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

2015 16th International Workshop on Microprocessor and SOC Test and Verification (MTV)

自引率

0.00%

发文量