research-article

A unified lattice model and framework for purity analyses

Authors:

Florian Kübler,

Michael Eichberg,

Mira MeziniAuthors Info & Claims

ASE '18: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

Pages 340 - 350

https://doi.org/10.1145/3238147.3238226

Published: 03 September 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Analyzing methods in object-oriented programs whether they are side-effect free and also deterministic, i.e., mathematically pure, has been the target of extensive research. Identifying such methods helps to find code smells and security related issues, and also helps analyses detecting concurrency bugs. Pure methods are also used by formal verification approaches as the foundations for specifications and proving the pureness is necessary to ensure correct specifications. However, so far no common terminology exists which describes the purity of methods. Furthermore, some terms (e.g., pure or side-effect free) are also used inconsistently. Further, all current approaches only report selected purity information making them only suitable for a smaller subset of the potential use cases. In this paper, we present a fine-grained unified lattice model which puts the purity levels found in the literature into relation and which adds a new level that generalizes existing definitions. We have also implemented a scalable, modularized purity analysis which produces significantly more precise results for real-world programs than the best-performing related work. The analysis shows that all defined levels are found in real-world projects.

References

[1]

Dotty documentation overview – Effect capabilities, 2018. Retrieved 2018-04-21.

[2]

B. Alpern, S. Augart, S. M. Blackburn, M. Butrico, A. Cocchi, P. Cheng, J. Dolby, S. Fink, D. Grove, M. Hind, K. S. McKinley, M. Mergen, J. E. B. Moss, T. Ngo, V. Sarkar, and M. Trapp. The jikes research virtual machine project: Building an open-source research community. IBM Systems Journal, 44(2):399–417, 2005.

Digital Library

[3]

D. F. Bacon and P. F. Sweeney. Fast static analysis of C++ virtual function calls. ACM Sigplan Notices, 31(10):324–341, 1996.

Digital Library

[4]

A. Banerjee and D. A. Naumann. Secure information flow and pointer confinement in a Java-like language. In CSFW, volume 2, page 253, 2002.

Digital Library

[5]

M. Barnett, D. A. Naumann, W. Schulte, and Q. Sun. 99.44% pure: Useful abstractions in specifications. In ECOOP workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs (FTfJP), 2004.

[6]

M. Barnett, D. A. Naumann, W. Schulte, and Q. Sun. Allowing state changes in specifications. ETRICS, 3995:321–336, 2006.

Digital Library

[7]

W. C. Benton and C. N. Fischer. Mostly-functional behavior in Java programs. In International Workshop on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, pages 29–43. Springer, 2009.

Digital Library

[8]

C. Boyapati, S. Khurshid, and D. Marinov. Korat: Automated testing based on Java predicates. In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, volume 27, pages 123–133. ACM, 2002.

Digital Library

[9]

B. Cahoon and K. S. McKinley. Data flow analysis for software prefetching linked data structures in Java. In Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, 2001. Proceedings. 2001 International Conference on, pages 280–291. IEEE, 2001.

Digital Library

[10]

J.-D. Choi, M. Gupta, M. Serrano, V. C. Sreedhar, and S. Midkiff. Escape analysis for Java. Acm Sigplan Notices, 34(10):1–19, 1999.

Digital Library

[11]

L. R. Clausen. A Java bytecode optimizer using side-effect analysis. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 9(11):1031–1045, 1997.

[12]

D. R. Cok. Reasoning with specifications containing method calls and model fields. Journal of Object Technology, 4(8):77–103, 2005.

[13]

V. Dallmeier. Static vs. dynamic purity analysis. Dept. Comput. Sci., Saarland Univ., Saarbrucken, Germany, Tech. Rep. SU-CS-2013-012, 2007.

[14]

V. Dallmeier, C. Lindig, A. Wasylkowski, and A. Zeller. Mining object behavior with ADABU. In Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Dynamic systems analysis, pages 17–24. ACM, 2006.

Digital Library

[15]

Á. Darvas and K. R. M. Leino. Practical reasoning about invocations and implementations of pure methods. In FASE, volume 4422, pages 336–351. Springer, 2007.

Digital Library

[16]

Á. Darvas and P. Müller. Reasoning about method calls in interface specifications. Journal of Object Technology, 5(5):59–85, 2006.

[17]

J. Dietrich, H. Schole, L. Sui, and E. Tempero. XCorpus–an executable corpus of Java programs. The Journal of Object Technology, 16(4), 2017.

[18]

J. J. Dolado, M. Harman, M. C. Otero, and L. Hu. An empirical investigation of the influence of a type of side effects on program comprehension. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(7):665–670, 2003.

Digital Library

[19]

M. Eichberg, F. Kübler, D. Helm, M. Reif, G. Salvaneschi, and M. Mezini. Lattice based modularization of static analyses. SOAP 2018, 2018.

Digital Library

[20]

M. Finifter, A. Mettler, N. Sastry, and D. Wagner. Verifiable functional purity in Java. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 161–174. ACM, 2008.

Digital Library

[21]

C. Flanagan, K. R. M. Leino, M. Lillibridge, G. Nelson, J. B. Saxe, and R. Stata. PLDI 2002: Extended static checking for Java. ACM Sigplan Notices, 48(4S):22–33, 2013.

Digital Library

[22]

D. Gay and B. Steensgaard. Fast escape analysis and stack allocation for objectbased programs. In International Conference on Compiler Construction, pages 82–93. Springer, 2000.

Digital Library

[23]

S. Genaim and F. Spoto. Constancy analysis. Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs (FTfJP), page 100, 2008.

[24]

M. Hind and A. Pioli. Which pointer analysis should I use? In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, volume 25, pages 113–123. ACM, 2000.

Digital Library

[25]

W. Huang and A. Milanova. ReImInfer: Method purity inference for Java. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, page 38. ACM, 2012.

Digital Library

[26]

W. Huang, A. Milanova, W. Dietl, and M. D. Ernst. ReIm & ReImInfer: Checking and inference of reference immutability and method purity. In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, volume 47, pages 879–896. ACM, 2012.

Digital Library

[27]

R. Ierusalimschy and N. Rodriguez. Side-effect free functions in object-oriented languages. Computer languages, 21(3):129–146, 1995.

Digital Library

[28]

A. Le, O. Lhoták, and L. J. Hendren. Using inter-procedural side-effect information in JIT optimizations. In CC, pages 287–304. Springer, 2005.

Digital Library

[29]

G. T. Leavens and Y. Cheon. Design by contract with JML, 2006.

[30]

J. M. Lucassen and D. K. Gifford. Polymorphic effect systems. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, pages 47–57. ACM, 1988.

Digital Library

[31]

D. Marinov, A. Andoni, D. Daniliuc, S. Khurshid, and M. Rinard. An evaluation of exhaustive testing for data structures. Technical report, Technical Report MIT-LCS-TR-921, MIT CSAIL, Cambridge, MA, 2003.

[32]

D. A. Naumann. Observational purity and encapsulation. In FASE, volume 3442, pages 190–204. Springer, 2005.

Digital Library

[33]

D. Pearce. JPure: a modular purity system for Java. In Compiler construction, pages 104–123. Springer, 2011.

Digital Library

[34]

A. Potanin, J. Östlund, Y. Zibin, and M. D. Ernst. Immutability. In Aliasing in Object-Oriented Programming. Types, Analysis and Verification, pages 233–269. Springer, 2013.

Digital Library

[35]

A. Rountev. Precise identification of side-effect-free methods in Java. In Software Maintenance, 2004. Proceedings. 20th IEEE International Conference on, pages 82–91. IEEE, 2004.

Digital Library

[36]

A. Sabelfeld and A. C. Myers. Language-based information-flow security. IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications, 21(1):5–19, 2003.

Digital Library

[37]

A. Stewart, R. Cardell-Oliver, and R. Davies. Fine-grained classification of sideeffect free methods in real-world Java code and applications to software security. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference, page 37. ACM, 2016.

Digital Library

[38]

A. Sălcianu and M. Rinard. A combined pointer and purity analysis for Java programs. 2004.

[39]

A. Sălcianu and M. C. Rinard. Purity and side effect analysis for Java programs. In VMCAI, volume 5, pages 199–215. Springer, 2005.

Digital Library

[40]

E. Tempero, C. Anslow, J. Dietrich, T. Han, J. Li, M. Lumpe, H. Melton, and J. Noble. The Qualitas corpus: A curated collection of Java code for empirical studies. In Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 2010 17th Asia Pacific, pages 336–345. IEEE, 2010.

Digital Library

[41]

O. Tkachuk and M. B. Dwyer. Adapting side effects analysis for modular program model checking, volume 28. ACM, 2003.

Digital Library

[42]

H. Xu, C. J. Pickett, and C. Verbrugge. Dynamic purity analysis for Java programs. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering, pages 75–82. ACM, 2007.

Digital Library

[43]

J. Zhao, I. Rogers, C. Kirkham, and I. Watson. Pure method analysis within Jikes RVM. Proc. ICOOOLPS, 2008.

Cited By

Misu MAchar RLopes C(2024)SourcererJBF: A Java Build Framework For Large-Scale CompilationACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/363571033:3(1-35)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3635710
Keidel SHelm DRoth TMezini M(2024)A Modular Soundness Theory for the Blackboard Analysis ArchitectureProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_14(361-390)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_14
Knuppel ASchaer LSchaefer I(2021)How much Specification is Enough? Mutation Analysis for Software Contracts2021 IEEE/ACM 9th International Conference on Formal Methods in Software Engineering (FormaliSE)10.1109/FormaliSE52586.2021.00011(42-53)Online publication date: May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/FormaliSE52586.2021.00011
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A unified lattice model and framework for purity analyses
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software organization and properties
    1. Software functional properties
      1. Formal methods
        Automated static analysis
2. Theory of computation
  1. Semantics and reasoning
    1. Program reasoning
      1. Program analysis

Recommendations

Relations between quantum correlations, purity and teleportation fidelity for the two-qubit Heisenberg XYZ system

Quantifying and understanding quantum correlations may give a direct reply for many issues regarding the interesting behaviors of quantum system. To explore the quantum correlations in quantum teleportation, we have used a two-qubit Heisenberg XYZ ...
Dynamic purity analysis for java programs
PASTE '07: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering

The pure methods in a program are those that exhibit functional or side effect free behaviour, a useful property in many contexts. However, existing purity investigations present primarily staticresults. We perform a detailed examination of dynamic ...
Twist: sound reasoning for purity and entanglement in Quantum programs

Quantum programming languages enable developers to implement algorithms for quantum computers that promise computational breakthroughs in classically intractable tasks. Programming quantum computers requires awareness of entanglement, the phenomenon in ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ASE '18: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

September 2018

955 pages

ISBN:9781450359375

DOI:10.1145/3238147

General Chair:
Marianne Huchard
University of Montpellier, France
,
Program Chairs:
Christian Kästner
Carnegie Mellon University, USA
,
Gordon Fraser
University of Passau, Germany

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
CNRS: Centre National De La Rechercue Scientifique
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
IEEE-CS: Computer Society

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 03 September 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ASE '18

Sponsor:

SIGAI
CNRS
SIGSOFT
IEEE-CS

ASE '18: 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

September 3 - 7, 2018

Montpellier, France

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 82 of 337 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

8
Total Citations
View Citations
218
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)11
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 27 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Misu MAchar RLopes C(2024)SourcererJBF: A Java Build Framework For Large-Scale CompilationACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/363571033:3(1-35)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3635710
Keidel SHelm DRoth TMezini M(2024)A Modular Soundness Theory for the Blackboard Analysis ArchitectureProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_14(361-390)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-57267-8_14
Knuppel ASchaer LSchaefer I(2021)How much Specification is Enough? Mutation Analysis for Software Contracts2021 IEEE/ACM 9th International Conference on Formal Methods in Software Engineering (FormaliSE)10.1109/FormaliSE52586.2021.00011(42-53)Online publication date: May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/FormaliSE52586.2021.00011
Roth THelm DReif MMezini MGrundy J(2021)CiFiProceedings of the 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1109/ASE51524.2021.9678903(979-990)Online publication date: 15-Nov-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ASE51524.2021.9678903
Terragni VPezzè M(2021)Statically driven generation of concurrent tests for thread‐safe classesSoftware Testing, Verification and Reliability10.1002/stvr.177431:4Online publication date: 4-May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1774
Helm DKübler FReif MEichberg MMezini MDevanbu PCohen MZimmermann T(2020)Modular collaborative program analysis in OPALProceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3368089.3409765(184-196)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3368089.3409765
Lu ZVercammen SDemeyer S(2020)Semi-automatic Test Case Expansion for Mutation Testing2020 IEEE Workshop on Validation, Analysis and Evolution of Software Tests (VST)10.1109/VST50071.2020.9051637(1-7)Online publication date: Feb-2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/VST50071.2020.9051637
Terragni VPezze MBianchi F(2019)Coverage-Driven Test Generation for Thread-Safe Classes via Parallel and Conflict Dependencies2019 12th IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Validation and Verification (ICST)10.1109/ICST.2019.00034(264-275)Online publication date: Apr-2019
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2019.00034

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten