Using hardware performance counters for fault localization

In this work, we leverage hardware performance counters-collected data as abstraction mechanisms for program executions and use these abstractions to identify likely causes of failures. Our approach can be summarized as follows: Hardware counters-based data is collected from both successful and failed executions, the data collected from the successful executions is used to create normal behavior models of programs, and deviations from these models observed in failed executions are scored and reported as likely causes of failures. The results of our experiments conducted on three open source projects suggest that the proposed approach can effectively prioritize the space of likely causes of failures, which can in turn improve the turn around time for defect fixes

Combining hardware and software instrumentation to classify program executions

Several research efforts have studied ways to infer properties of software systems from program spectra gathered from the running systems, usually with software-level instrumentation. While these efforts appear to produce accurate classifications, detailed understanding of their costs and potential cost-benefit tradeoffs is lacking. In this work we present a hybrid instrumentation approach which uses hardware performance counters to gather program spectra at very low cost. This underlying data is further augmented with data captured by minimal amounts of software-level instrumentation. We also evaluate this hybrid approach by comparing it to other existing approaches. We conclude that these hybrid spectra can reliably distinguish failed executions from successful executions at a fraction of the runtime overhead cost of using software-based execution data

Fault localization based only on failed runs

Fault localization commonly relies on both passed and failed runs, but passed runs are generally susceptible to coincidental correctness and modern software automatically produces a huge number of bug reports on failed runs. FOnly is an effective new technique that relies only on failed runs to locate faults statistically. © 2012 IEEE.published_or_final_versio

Automatically Repairing Programs Using Both Tests and Bug Reports

The success of automated program repair (APR) depends significantly on its ability to localize the defects it is repairing. For fault localization (FL), APR tools typically use either spectrum-based (SBFL) techniques that use test executions or information-retrieval-based (IRFL) techniques that use bug reports. These two approaches often complement each other, patching different defects. No existing repair tool uses both SBFL and IRFL. We develop RAFL (Rank-Aggregation-Based Fault Localization), a novel FL approach that combines multiple FL techniques. We also develop Blues, a new IRFL technique that uses bug reports, and an unsupervised approach to localize defects. On a dataset of 818 real-world defects, SBIR (combined SBFL and Blues) consistently localizes more bugs and ranks buggy statements higher than the two underlying techniques. For example, SBIR correctly identifies a buggy statement as the most suspicious for 18.1% of the defects, while SBFL does so for 10.9% and Blues for 3.1%. We extend SimFix, a state-of-the-art APR tool, to use SBIR, SBFL, and Blues. SimFix using SBIR patches 112 out of the 818 defects; 110 when using SBFL, and 55 when using Blues. The 112 patched defects include 55 defects patched exclusively using SBFL, 7 patched exclusively using IRFL, 47 patched using both SBFL and IRFL and 3 new defects. SimFix using Blues significantly outperforms iFixR, the state-of-the-art IRFL-based APR tool. Overall, SimFix using our FL techniques patches ten defects no prior tools could patch. By evaluating on a benchmark of 818 defects, 442 previously unused in APR evaluations, we find that prior evaluations on the overused Defects4J benchmark have led to overly generous findings. Our paper is the first to (1) use combined FL for APR, (2) apply a more rigorous methodology for measuring patch correctness, and (3) evaluate on the new, substantially larger version of Defects4J.Comment: working pape