The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detecting Build Dependency Errors in Incremental Builds
Open accessAbstract
Incremental and parallel builds performed by build tools such as Make are the heart of modern C/C++ software projects. Their correct and efficient execution depends on build scripts. However, build scripts are prone to errors. The most prevalent errors are missing dependencies (MDs) and redundant dependencies (RDs). The state-of-the-art methods for detecting these errors rely on clean builds (i.e., full builds of a subset of software configurations in a clean environment), which is costly and takes up to a few hours for large-scale projects. To address these challenges, we propose a novel approach called EChecker to detect build dependency errors in the context of incremental builds. The core idea of EChecker is to automatically update actual build dependencies by inferring them from C/C++ pre-processor directives and Makefile changes from new commits, which avoids clean builds when possible. EChecker achieves higher efficiency than the methods that rely on clean builds while maintaining effectiveness. We selected 12 representative projects, with their sizes ranging from small to large, with 240 commits (20 commits for each project), based on which we evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of EChecker. We compared the evaluation results with a state-of-the-art build dependency error detection tool. The evaluation shows that the F-1 score of EChecker improved by 0.18 over the state-of-the-art method. EChecker increases the build dependency error detection efficiency by an average of 85.14 times (with a median of 16.30 times). The results demonstrate that EChecker can support practitioners in detecting build dependency errors efficiently.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Build scripts with perfect dependencies
Spall, S., Mitchell, N., & Tobin-Hochstadt, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3428237 · Cited by 8
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- 10.1109/ICSM.2007.4362624 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSME.2014.87 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSME.2014.87 · DOI
- 10.1109/MSR.2017.62 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10664-017-9510-8 · DOI · Paper page
- Charlie Curtsinger and Daniel W. Barowy. 2021. LaForge: Always-Correct and Fast Incremental Builds from Simple Specifications. CoRR, abs/2108.12469 (2021), arXiv:2108.12469. arxiv:2108.12469 · arXiv
- Charlie Curtsinger and Daniel W. Barowy. 2022. Riker: Always-Correct and Fast Incremental Builds from Simple Specifications. In 2022 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2022, Carlsbad, CA, USA, July 11-13, 2022, Jiri Schindler and Noa Zilberman (Eds.). USENIX Association, 885–898. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc22/presentation/curtsinger
- 10.1145/3395363.3397388 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jss.2015.06.063 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2020.3048335 · DOI
- 10.1145/239098.239129 · DOI
- 10.1145/3180155.3180181 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSE.2019.00125 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3293882.3330578 · DOI
- 10.1145/2897695.2897703 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSME.2014.46 · DOI
- 10.1145/1985793.1985813 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10664-014-9324-x · DOI
- Eric S Raymond. 2003. The art of Unix programming. Addison-Wesley Professional.
- 10.1145/3180155.3180224 · DOI
- 10.1109/ASE.2019.00056 · DOI
- 10.1145/3510003.3510102 · DOI
- 10.1145/2568225.2568255 · DOI
- 10.1145/3428212 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICSE.2012.6227152 · DOI
- 10.1145/2351676.2351749 · DOI
- 10.1145/3387940.3392181 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSE.2015.34 · DOI
- 10.1145/3551349.3556930 · DOI
- 10.1145/2554850.2555134 · DOI
- 10.1109/COMPSAC.2014.12 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Lyu, J., Li, S., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Rong, G., & Rigger, M.
- Affiliations
- Nanjing University (CN)
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-09-11
- Pages
- 1-12
- OpenAlex
- W4402457616
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 1.93
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62302210, 62202219, 62072227)
- Nanjing University (KFKT2022A09, KFKT2023A10, ZZKT2022A25, KFKT2023A09)
- Jiangsu Provincial Key Research and Development Program (BE2021002, BE20 21002-2)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- incremental build, Makefile, preprocessor directives, software configuration management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review