Using Static Analysis to Find Bugs

By N. Ayewah, David Hovemeyer, J. D. Morgenthaler, John Penix, William W. Pugh. IEEE Software, 2008

601 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A Study of Visual Studio Usage in Practice (2016, background): “4) A discussion of opportunities to advance the research in IDEs and developer-assistance tools.”
Emergent, crowd-scale programming practice in the IDE (2014, neutral): “Much work has focused on tools for static and dynamic analysis [2, 10].”
Learning a classifier for false positive error reports emitted by static code analysis tools (2017, methodology): “As the subject SCA tool, we use the FindSecBugs plug-in of FindBugs (Arteau 2016; Ayewah et al. 2008) (a widely-used tool for Java).”
On the "Naturalness" of Buggy Code (2015, methodology): “The results for FINDBUGS were comparable, as were the results using full credit.”
Software Vulnerability Analysis and Discovery Using Machine-Learning and Data-Mining Techniques (2017, background): “…is a static program analysis approach where untrusted data from input sources is marked as tainted and its flow to sensitive program statements known as sinks is tracked as a potential indicator of vulnerability (Evans and Larochelle 2002; Larus et al. 2004; Ayewah et al. 2008; Bessey et al. 2010).”
Why don't software developers use static analysis tools to find bugs? (2013, background): “FindBugs runs as a plug-in for the Eclipse [7] and NetBeans [8] integrated development environments (IDEs).”