Bug finding tools can find defects in software source code using an automated static analysis. This automation may be able to reduce the time spent for other testing and review activities. For this we need to have a clear understanding of how the defects found by bug finding tools relate to the defects found by other techniques. This paper describes a case study using several projects mainly from an industrial environment that were used to analyse the interrelationships. The main finding is that the bug finding tools predominantly find different defects than testing but a subset of defects found by reviews. However, the types that can be detected are analysed more thoroughly. Therefore, a combination is most advisable if the high number of false positives of the tools can be tolerated.
Engler and Musuvathi discuss in @cite_7 the comparison of their bug finding tool with model checking techniques. They argument that static analysis is able to check larger amounts of code and find more defects but model checking can check the implications of the code not just properties that are on the surface.
@cite_7
1992371286
Static checking can verify the absence of errors in a program, but often requires written annotations or specifications. As a result, static checking can be difficult to use effectively: it can be difficult to determine a specification and tedious to annotate programs. Automated tools that aid the annotation process can decrease the cost of static checking and enable it to be more widely used.This paper describes an evaluation of the effectiveness of two techniques, one static and one dynamic, to assist the annotation process. We quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate 41 programmers using ESC Java in a program verification task over three small programs, using Houdini for static inference and Daikon for dynamic inference. We also investigate the effect of unsoundness in the dynamic analysis.Statistically significant results show that both inference tools improve task completion; Daikon enables users to express more correct invariants; unsoundness of the dynamic analysis is little hindrance to users; and users imperfectly exploit Houdini. Interviews indicate that beginning users found Daikon to be helpful; Houdini to be neutral; static checking to be of potential practical use; and both assistance tools to have unique benefits.Our observations not only provide a critical evaluation of these two techniques, but also highlight important considerations for creating future assistance tools.