Chadd C. Williams

dblp:56/3556 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program analysis · 40% Empirical software engineering · 40% Debugging and program repair · 20%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis › static analysis
bug detection
0.112005
Automatic Mining of Source Code Repositories to Improve Bug Finding Techniques · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2005
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › version history analysis
code change history
0.112005
Automatic Mining of Source Code Repositories to Improve Bug Finding Techniques · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2005
Debugging and program repair
fault localization
0.112005
Automatic Mining of Source Code Repositories to Improve Bug Finding Techniques · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2005
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.112005
Automatic Mining of Source Code Repositories to Improve Bug Finding Techniques · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2005
Program analysis
static analysis
0.112005
Automatic Mining of Source Code Repositories to Improve Bug Finding Techniques · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2005

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

static source code checking · 0.1repository mining · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 Lightweight Techniques for Tracking Unique Program Statements
abstract
Previous work on tracking source locations has focused on tracking lines through multiple revisions of software. In this paper, we explore a new technique for tracking statements, rather than lines, across multiple revisions of Java source code. We show that our statement-tracking technique achieves comparable accuracy for source code than the most accurate line-tracking techniques, while also safely handling all non-executable formatting changes, such as breaking a single statement across many lines, adding or removing whitespace, moving brackets, or re-ordering methods. Finally, we compare the performance of three of the current state-of-the-art techniques for tracking lines across revisions on a series of benchmarks, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each technique.
Jaime Spacco, Chadd C. Williams
SCAM2
2008 Branching and merging in the repository
abstract
Two of the most complex operations version control software allows a user to perform are branching and merging. Branching provides the user the ability to create a copy of the source code to allow changes to be stored in version control but outside of the trunk. Merging provides the user the ability to copy changes from a branch to the trunk. Performing a merge can be a tedious operation and one that may be error prone. In this paper, we compare file revisions found on branches with those found on the trunk to determine when a change that is applied to a branch is moved to the trunk. This will allow us to study how developers use merges and to determine if merges are in fact more error prone than other commits.
Chadd C. Williams, Jaime Spacco
MSR1
2005 Automatic Mining of Source Code Repositories to Improve Bug Finding Techniques
abstract
We describe a method to use the source code change history of a software project to drive and help to refine the search for bugs. Based on the data retrieved from the source code repository, we implement a static source code checker that searches for a commonly fixed bug and uses information automatically mined from the source code repository to refine its results. By applying our tool, we have identified a total of 178 warnings that are likely bugs in the Apache Web server source code and a total of 546 warnings that are likely bugs in Wine, an open-source implementation of the Windows API. We show that our technique is more effective than the same static analysis that does not use historical data from the source code repository.
Chadd C. Williams, Jeffrey K. Hollingsworth
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1