Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Weidong Hou

dblp:320/2055 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021

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
Software testing · 50% Compilers and program optimization · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Compilers and program optimization
decompilation
0.812024
Understanding and Finding Java Decompiler Bugs · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Software testing
differential testing
0.812024
Understanding and Finding Java Decompiler Bugs · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024

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

program generation · 0.8differential testing · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Understanding and Finding Java Decompiler Bugs
abstract
Java decompilers are programs that perform the reverse process of Java compilers, i.e., they translate Java bytecode to Java source code. They are essential for reverse engineering purposes and have become more sophisticated and reliable over the years. However, it remains challenging for modern Java decompilers to reliably perform correct decompilation on real-world programs. To shed light on the key challenges of Java decompilation, this paper provides the first systematic study on the characteristics and causes of bugs in mature, widely-used Java decompilers. We conduct the study by investigating 333 unique bugs from three popular Java decompilers. Our key findings and observations include: (1) Although most of the reported bugs were found when decompiling large, real-world code, 40.2% of them have small test cases for bug reproduction; (2) Over 80% of the bugs manifest as exceptions, syntactic errors, or semantic errors, and bugs with source code artifacts are very likely semantic errors; (3) 57.7%, 39.0%, and 41.1% of the bugs respectively are attributed to three stages of decompilers—loading structure entities from bytecode, optimizing these entities, and generating source code from these entities; (4) Bugs in decompilers’ type inference are the most complex to fix; and (5) Region restoration for structures like loop, sugaring for special structures like switch, and type inference of variables of generic types or indistinguishable types are the three most significant challenges in Java decompilation, which to some extent explains our findings in (3) and (4). Based on these findings, we present JD-Tester, a differential testing framework for Java decompilers, and our experience of using it in testing the three popular Java decompilers. JD-Testerutilizes different Java program generators to construct executable Java tests and finds exceptions, syntactic, and semantic inconsistencies (i.e. bugs) between a generated test and its compiled-decompiled version (through compilation and execution). In total, we have found 62 bugs in the three decompilers, demonstrating both the effectiveness of JD-Tester, and the importance of testing and validating Java decompilers.
Weidong Hou, Minxue Pan, Xuandong Li, Zhendong Su 0001
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.2