skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Complexity-guided container replacement synthesis

Published:29 April 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Containers, such as lists and maps, are fundamental data structures in modern programming languages. However, improper choice of container types may lead to significant performance issues. This paper presents Cres, an approach that automatically synthesizes container replacements to improve runtime performance. The synthesis algorithm works with static analysis techniques to identify how containers are utilized in the program, and attempts to select a method with lower time complexity for each container method call. Our approach can preserve program behavior and seize the opportunity of reducing execution time effectively for general inputs. We implement Cres and evaluate it on 12 real-world Java projects. It is shown that Cres synthesizes container replacements for the projects with 384.2 KLoC in 14 minutes and discovers six categories of container replacements, which can achieve an average performance improvement of 8.1%.

References

  1. Rajeev Alur, Rastislav Bodík, Garvit Juniwal, Milo M. K. Martin, Mukund Raghothaman, Sanjit A. Seshia, Rishabh Singh, Armando Solar-Lezama, Emina Torlak, and Abhishek Udupa. 2013. Syntax-guided synthesis. In Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2013, Portland, OR, USA, October 20-23, 2013. IEEE, 1–8. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6679385/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrea Arcuri and Lionel C. Briand. 2011. A practical guide for using statistical tests to assess randomized algorithms in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2011, Waikiki, Honolulu , HI, USA, May 21-28, 2011, Richard N. Taylor, Harald C. Gall, and Nenad Medvidovic (Eds.). ACM, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1985793.1985795 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Steven Arzt, Siegfried Rasthofer, Christian Fritz, Eric Bodden, Alexandre Bartel, Jacques Klein, Yves Le Traon, Damien Octeau, and Patrick D. McDaniel. 2014. FlowDroid: precise context, flow, field, object-sensitive and lifecycle-aware taint analysis for Android apps. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’14, Edinburgh, United Kingdom - June 09 - 11, 2014, Michael F. P. O’Boyle and Keshav Pingali (Eds.). ACM, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1145/2594291.2594299 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Michail Basios, Lingbo Li, Fan Wu, Leslie Kanthan, and Earl T Barr. 2018. Darwinian data structure selection. In Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 118–128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Osbert Bastani, Rahul Sharma, Alex Aiken, and Percy Liang. 2018. Active learning of points-to specifications. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 18-22, 2018, Jeffrey S. Foster and Dan Grossman (Eds.). ACM, 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1145/3192366.3192383 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bor-Yuh Evan Chang, Cezara Dragoi, Roman Manevich, Noam Rinetzky, and Xavier Rival. 2020. Shape Analysis. Found. Trends Program. Lang., 6, 1-2 (2020), 1–158. https://doi.org/10.1561/2500000037 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. David R. Chase, Mark N. Wegman, and F. Kenneth Zadeck. 1990. Analysis of Pointers and Structures. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN’90 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), White Plains, New York, USA, June 20-22, 1990, Bernard N. Fischer (Ed.). ACM, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1145/93542.93585 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Alvin Cheung, Armando Solar-Lezama, and Samuel Madden. 2013. Optimizing database-backed applications with query synthesis. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’13, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-19, 2013, Hans-Juergen Boehm and Cormac Flanagan (Eds.). ACM, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491956.2462180 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Cres. 2021. Report of container replacement synthesis. http://list.megatron-report.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jan Eberhardt, Samuel Steffen, Veselin Raychev, and Martin T. Vechev. 2019. Unsupervised learning of API aliasing specifications. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 22-26, 2019, Kathryn S. McKinley and Kathleen Fisher (Eds.). ACM, 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1145/3314221.3314640 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Michael P Fay and Michael A Proschan. 2010. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules. Statistics surveys, 4 (2010), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Tomás Fiedor, Lukás Holík, Adam Rogalewicz, Moritz Sinn, Tomás Vojnar, and Florian Zuleger. 2018. From Shapes to Amortized Complexity. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation - 19th International Conference, VMCAI 2018, Los Angeles, CA, USA, January 7-9, 2018, Proceedings, Isil Dillig and Jens Palsberg (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10747). Springer, 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73721-8_10 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Sumit Gulwani, Sagar Jain, and Eric Koskinen. 2009. Control-flow refinement and progress invariants for bound analysis. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2009, Dublin, Ireland, June 15-21, 2009, Michael Hind and Amer Diwan (Eds.). ACM, 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1145/1542476.1542518 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Sumit Gulwani, Susmit Jha, Ashish Tiwari, and Ramarathnam Venkatesan. 2011. Synthesis of loop-free programs. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2011, San Jose, CA, USA, June 4-8, 2011, Mary W. Hall and David A. Padua (Eds.). ACM, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/1993498.1993506 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sumit Gulwani, Tal Lev-Ami, and Mooly Sagiv. 2009. A combination framework for tracking partition sizes. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2009, Savannah, GA, USA, January 21-23, 2009, Zhong Shao and Benjamin C. Pierce (Eds.). ACM, 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1145/1480881.1480912 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Sumit Gulwani, Krishna K. Mehra, and Trishul M. Chilimbi. 2009. SPEED: precise and efficient static estimation of program computational complexity. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2009, Savannah, GA, USA, January 21-23, 2009, Zhong Shao and Benjamin C. Pierce (Eds.). ACM, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1145/1480881.1480898 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Samir Hasan, Zachary King, Munawar Hafiz, Mohammed Sayagh, Bram Adams, and Abram Hindle. 2016. Energy profiles of Java collections classes. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA, May 14-22, 2016, Laura K. Dillon, Willem Visser, and Laurie A. Williams (Eds.). ACM, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884869 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Peter Hawkins, Alex Aiken, Kathleen Fisher, Martin C. Rinard, and Mooly Sagiv. 2011. Data representation synthesis. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2011, San Jose, CA, USA, June 4-8, 2011, Mary W. Hall and David A. Padua (Eds.). ACM, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/1993498.1993504 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Peter Hawkins, Alex Aiken, Kathleen Fisher, Martin C. Rinard, and Mooly Sagiv. 2012. Concurrent data representation synthesis. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’12, Beijing, China - June 11 - 16, 2012, Jan Vitek, Haibo Lin, and Frank Tip (Eds.). ACM, 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1145/2254064.2254114 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Stratos Idreos, Kostas Zoumpatianos, Brian Hentschel, Michael S. Kester, and Demi Guo. 2018. The Data Calculator: Data Structure Design and Cost Synthesis from First Principles and Learned Cost Models. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD Conference 2018, Houston, TX, USA, June 10-15, 2018, Gautam Das, Christopher M. Jermaine, and Philip A. Bernstein (Eds.). ACM, 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183713.3199671 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Guoliang Jin, Linhai Song, Xiaoming Shi, Joel Scherpelz, and Shan Lu. 2012. Understanding and detecting real-world performance bugs. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’12, Beijing, China - June 11 - 16, 2012, Jan Vitek, Haibo Lin, and Frank Tip (Eds.). ACM, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1145/2254064.2254075 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Changhee Jung, Silvius Rus, Brian P Railing, Nathan Clark, and Santosh Pande. 2011. Brainy: Effective selection of data structures. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 46, 6 (2011), 86–97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Vini Kanvar and Uday P. Khedker. 2016. Heap Abstractions for Static Analysis. ACM Comput. Surv., 49, 2 (2016), 29:1–29:47. https://doi.org/10.1145/2931098 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Oliver Kennedy and Lukasz Ziarek. 2015. Just-In-Time Data Structures. In Seventh Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, CIDR 2015, Asilomar, CA, USA, January 4-7, 2015, Online Proceedings. www.cidrdb.org. http://cidrdb.org/cidr2015/Papers/CIDR15_Paper9.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Deokhwan Kim and Martin C. Rinard. 2011. Verification of semantic commutativity conditions and inverse operations on linked data structures. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2011, San Jose, CA, USA, June 4-8, 2011, Mary W. Hall and David A. Padua (Eds.). ACM, 528–541. https://doi.org/10.1145/1993498.1993561 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Chris Lattner and Vikram S. Adve. 2004. LLVM: A Compilation Framework for Lifelong Program Analysis & Transformation. In 2nd IEEE / ACM International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO 2004), 20-24 March 2004, San Jose, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/CGO.2004.1281665 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Caroline Lemieux, Rohan Padhye, Koushik Sen, and Dawn Song. 2018. PerfFuzz: automatically generating pathological inputs. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2018, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 16-21, 2018, Frank Tip and Eric Bodden (Eds.). ACM, 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1145/3213846.3213874 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Lian Li, Cristina Cifuentes, and Nathan Keynes. 2011. Boosting the performance of flow-sensitive points-to analysis using value flow. In SIGSOFT/FSE’11 19th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE-19) and ESEC’11: 13th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC-13), Szeged, Hungary, September 5-9, 2011, Tibor Gyimóthy and Andreas Zeller (Eds.). ACM, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1145/2025113.2025160 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Calvin Loncaric, Emina Torlak, and Michael D. Ernst. 2016. Fast synthesis of fast collections. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2016, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, June 13-17, 2016, Chandra Krintz and Emery Berger (Eds.). ACM, 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1145/2908080.2908122 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Tianhan Lu, Bor-Yuh Evan Chang, and Ashutosh Trivedi. 2021. Selectively-Amortized Resource Bounding. In Static Analysis - 28th International Symposium, SAS 2021, Chicago, IL, USA, October 17-19, 2021, Proceedings, Cezara Dragoi, Suvam Mukherjee, and Kedar S. Namjoshi (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12913). Springer, 286–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88806-0_14 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Irene Manotas, Lori Pollock, and James Clause. 2014. Seeds: A software engineer’s energy-optimization decision support framework. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. 503–514.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Rashmi Mudduluru and Murali Krishna Ramanathan. 2016. Efficient flow profiling for detecting performance bugs. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2016, Saarbrücken, Germany, July 18-20, 2016, Andreas Zeller and Abhik Roychoudhury (Eds.). ACM, 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1145/2931037.2931066 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Rocco De Nicola. 2011. Behavioral Equivalences. In Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing, David A. Padua (Ed.). Springer, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09766-4_517 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Wellington Oliveira, Renato Oliveira, Fernando Castor, Benito Fernandes, and Gustavo Pinto. 2019. Recommending energy-efficient Java collections. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2019, 26-27 May 2019, Montreal, Canada, Margaret-Anne D. Storey, Bram Adams, and Sonia Haiduc (Eds.). IEEE / ACM, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSR.2019.00033 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Wellington Oliveira, Renato Oliveira, Fernando Castor, Gustavo Pinto, and João Paulo Fernandes. 2021. Improving energy-efficiency by recommending Java collections. Empir. Softw. Eng., 26, 3 (2021), 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-09950-y Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Oswaldo Olivo, Isil Dillig, and Calvin Lin. 2015. Static detection of asymptotic performance bugs in collection traversals. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Portland, OR, USA, June 15-17, 2015, David Grove and Stephen M. Blackburn (Eds.). ACM, 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1145/2737924.2737966 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Shankara Pailoor, Yuepeng Wang, Xinyu Wang, and Isil Dillig. 2021. Synthesizing data structure refinements from integrity constraints. In PLDI ’21: 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Virtual Event, Canada, June 20-25, 20211, Stephen N. Freund and Eran Yahav (Eds.). ACM, 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1145/3453483.3454063 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Theofilos Petsios, Jason Zhao, Angelos D. Keromytis, and Suman Jana. 2017. SlowFuzz: Automated Domain-Independent Detection of Algorithmic Complexity Vulnerabilities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2017, Dallas, TX, USA, October 30 - November 03, 2017, Bhavani M. Thuraisingham, David Evans, Tal Malkin, and Dongyan Xu (Eds.). ACM, 2155–2168. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3134073 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Thomas W. Reps, Mooly Sagiv, and Reinhard Wilhelm. 2007. Shape Analysis and Applications. In The Compiler Design Handbook: Optimizations and Machine Code Generation, Second Edition, Y. N. Srikant and Priti Shankar (Eds.). CRC Press, 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Shmuel Sagiv, Thomas W. Reps, and Reinhard Wilhelm. 2002. Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 24, 3 (2002), 217–298. https://doi.org/10.1145/514188.514190 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Malavika Samak, Deokhwan Kim, and Martin C. Rinard. 2020. Synthesizing replacement classes. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 4, POPL (2020), 52:1–52:33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3371120 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Ohad Shacham, Martin T. Vechev, and Eran Yahav. 2009. Chameleon: adaptive selection of collections. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2009, Dublin, Ireland, June 15-21, 2009, Michael Hind and Amer Diwan (Eds.). ACM, 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1145/1542476.1542522 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Qingkai Shi, Xiao Xiao, Rongxin Wu, Jinguo Zhou, Gang Fan, and Charles Zhang. 2018. Pinpoint: fast and precise sparse value flow analysis for million lines of code. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 18-22, 2018, Jeffrey S. Foster and Dan Grossman (Eds.). ACM, 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1145/3192366.3192418 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Qingkai Shi, Peisen Yao, Rongxin Wu, and Charles Zhang. 2021. Path-sensitive sparse analysis without path conditions. In PLDI ’21: 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Virtual Event, Canada, June 20-25, 2021, Stephen N. Freund and Eran Yahav (Eds.). ACM, 930–943. https://doi.org/10.1145/3453483.3454086 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Armando Solar-Lezama, Christopher Grant Jones, and Rastislav Bodík. 2008. Sketching concurrent data structures. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2008 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Tucson, AZ, USA, June 7-13, 2008, Rajiv Gupta and Saman P. Amarasinghe (Eds.). ACM, 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1145/1375581.1375599 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Linhai Song and Shan Lu. 2017. Performance diagnosis for inefficient loops. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 20-28, 2017, Sebastián Uchitel, Alessandro Orso, and Martin P. Robillard (Eds.). IEEE / ACM, 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2017.41 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Johannes Späth, Lisa Nguyen Quang Do, Karim Ali, and Eric Bodden. 2016. Boomerang: Demand-Driven Flow- and Context-Sensitive Pointer Analysis for Java. In 30th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, ECOOP 2016, July 18-22, 2016, Rome, Italy, Shriram Krishnamurthi and Benjamin S. Lerner (Eds.) (LIPIcs, Vol. 56). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 22:1–22:26. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ECOOP.2016.22 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Akhilesh Srikanth, Burak Sahin, and William R. Harris. 2017. Complexity verification using guided theorem enumeration. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2017, Paris, France, January 18-20, 2017, Giuseppe Castagna and Andrew D. Gordon (Eds.). ACM, 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1145/3009837.3009864 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Yulei Sui and Jingling Xue. 2016. SVF: interprocedural static value-flow analysis in LLVM. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Compiler Construction, CC 2016, Barcelona, Spain, March 12-18, 2016, Ayal Zaks and Manuel V. Hermenegildo (Eds.). ACM, 265–266. https://doi.org/10.1145/2892208.2892235 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Cheng Wen, Haijun Wang, Yuekang Li, Shengchao Qin, Yang Liu, Zhiwu Xu, Hongxu Chen, Xiaofei Xie, Geguang Pu, and Ting Liu. 2020. MemLock: memory usage guided fuzzing. In ICSE ’20: 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, South Korea, 27 June - 19 July, 2020, Gregg Rothermel and Doo-Hwan Bae (Eds.). ACM, 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377811.3380396 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Reinhard Wilhelm, Jakob Engblom, Andreas Ermedahl, Niklas Holsti, Stephan Thesing, David B. Whalley, Guillem Bernat, Christian Ferdinand, Reinhold Heckmann, Tulika Mitra, Frank Mueller, Isabelle Puaut, Peter P. Puschner, Jan Staschulat, and Per Stenström. 2008. The worst-case execution-time problem - overview of methods and survey of tools. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst., 7, 3 (2008), 36:1–36:53. https://doi.org/10.1145/1347375.1347389 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Xiaofei Xie, Bihuan Chen, Yang Liu, Wei Le, and Xiaohong Li. 2016. Proteus: computing disjunctive loop summary via path dependency analysis. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18, 2016, Thomas Zimmermann, Jane Cleland-Huang, and Zhendong Su (Eds.). ACM, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290.2950340 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Guoqing Xu. 2013. CoCo: Sound and Adaptive Replacement of Java Collections. In ECOOP 2013 - Object-Oriented Programming - 27th European Conference, Montpellier, France, July 1-5, 2013. Proceedings, Giuseppe Castagna (Ed.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7920). Springer, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39038-8_1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Guoqing Xu and Atanas Rountev. 2010. Detecting inefficiently-used containers to avoid bloat. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2010, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 5-10, 2010, Benjamin G. Zorn and Alexander Aiken (Eds.). ACM, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806596.1806616 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Guoqing Xu, Dacong Yan, and Atanas Rountev. 2012. Static Detection of Loop-Invariant Data Structures. In ECOOP 2012 - Object-Oriented Programming - 26th European Conference, Beijing, China, June 11-16, 2012. Proceedings, James Noble (Ed.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7313). Springer, 738–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31057-7_32 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Guoqing (Harry) Xu, Nick Mitchell, Matthew Arnold, Atanas Rountev, Edith Schonberg, and Gary Sevitsky. 2010. Finding low-utility data structures. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2010, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 5-10, 2010, Benjamin G. Zorn and Alexander Aiken (Eds.). ACM, 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806596.1806617 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Navid Yaghmazadeh, Yuepeng Wang, Isil Dillig, and Thomas Dillig. 2017. SQLizer: query synthesis from natural language. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 1, OOPSLA (2017), 63:1–63:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133887 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Junwen Yang, Pranav Subramaniam, Shan Lu, Cong Yan, and Alvin Cheung. 2018. How not to structure your database-backed web applications: a study of performance bugs in the wild. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 03, 2018, Michel Chaudron, Ivica Crnkovic, Marsha Chechik, and Mark Harman (Eds.). ACM, 800–810. https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180194 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Karen Zee, Viktor Kuncak, and Martin C. Rinard. 2008. Full functional verification of linked data structures. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2008 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Tucson, AZ, USA, June 7-13, 2008, Rajiv Gupta and Saman P. Amarasinghe (Eds.). ACM, 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1145/1375581.1375624 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Qirun Zhang, Michael R. Lyu, Hao Yuan, and Zhendong Su. 2013. Fast algorithms for Dyck-CFL-reachability with applications to alias analysis. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’13, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-19, 2013, Hans-Juergen Boehm and Cormac Flanagan (Eds.). ACM, 435–446. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491956.2462159 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Complexity-guided container replacement synthesis

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!