Advertisement

Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 33–56 | Cite as

An information retrieval process to aid in the analysis of code clones

  • Robert Tairas
  • Jeff Gray
Article

Abstract

The advent of new static analysis tools has automated the searching for code clones, which are duplicated or similar code fragments in a program. However, clone detection tools can report many clones if the source code that is being searched is large. Programmers may have difficulty comprehending the extensive results from the detection tool, which may inhibit the ability to maintain the identified clones. Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) is an information retrieval technique that attempts to find relationships in a corpus based on the analysis of the documents in the corpus and the terms in the documents. In this paper, LSI is used to cluster clone classes that have been identified initially by a clone detection tool. The goal of this paper is to detect trends and associations among the clustered clone classes and determine if they provide further comprehension to assist in the maintenance of clones. Experimental evaluation of the approach is reported from a sequence of tools that are chained together to perform an analysis of clones detected in the Microsoft Windows NT kernel source code.

Keywords

Information retrieval Program comprehension Latent semantic indexing Code clone analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers who provided many helpful suggestions that assisted in improving the content and presentation of this paper.

This project is supported by National Science Foundation grant CPA-0702764.

References

  1. Antoniol G, Villano U, Merlo E, Penta M (2002) Analyzing Cloning Evolution in the Linux Kernel. Inf Softw Technol 44(13):755–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balazinska M, Merlo E, Dagenais M, Lague B, Kontogiannis K (1999) Measuring Clone Based Re-engineering Opportunities. Proceedings of the International Software Metrics Symposium. Boca Raton, FL, 292–303Google Scholar
  3. Baxter I, Yahin A, Moura L, Sant’Anna M, Bier L (1998) Clone Detection using Abstract Syntax Trees. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance. Bethesda, MD, 368–377Google Scholar
  4. Bellon S, Koschke R, Antoniol G, Krinke J, Merlo E (2007) Comparison and Evaluation of Clone Detection Tools. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(9):577–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collard M, Maletic J (2004) Document-Oriented Source Code Transformation using XML. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Evolution Transformation. Delft, The Netherlands, 11–14Google Scholar
  6. Deerwester S, Dumais S, Furnas G, Landauer T, Harshman R (1990) Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci 41(6):391–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Han J, Kamber M (2006) Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufman, San FransiscoGoogle Scholar
  8. Jiang L, Misherghi G, Su Z, Glondu S (2007) DECKARD: Scalable and Accurate Tree-based Detection of Code Clones. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. Minneapolis, MN, 96–105Google Scholar
  9. Jiang Z, Hassan A (2007) A Framework for Studying Clones in Large Software Systems. Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation. Paris, France, 203–212Google Scholar
  10. Kamiya T, Kusumoto S, Inoue K (2002) CCFinder: A Multilinguistic Token-Based Code Clone Detection System for Large Scale Source Code. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(7):654–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kapser C, Godfrey M (2004) Aiding Comprehension of Cloning Through Categorization. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution. Kyoto, Japan, 85–94Google Scholar
  12. Koni-N’Sapu G (2001) A Scenario-Based Approach for Refactoring Duplicated Code in Object-Oriented Systems. Diploma Thesis. University of Bern, Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuhn A, Ducasse S, Gîrba T (2007) Semantic Clustering: Identifying Topics in Source Code. Inf Softw Technol 49(3):230–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li Z, Lu S, Myagmar S, Zhou Y (2006) CP-Miner: Finding Copy-Paste and Related Bugs in Large-Scale Software Code. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 32(3):176–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Livieri S, Higo Y, Matsushita M, Inoue K (2007a) Very-Large Scale Code Clone Analysis and Visualization of Open Source Programs Using Distributed CCFinder: D-CCFinder. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. Minneapolis, MN, 106–115Google Scholar
  16. Livieri S, Higo Y, Matsushita M, Inoue K (2007b) Analysis of the Linux Kernel Evolution Using Code Clone Coverage. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories. Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcus A, Maletic J (2001) Identification of High-Level Concept Clones in Source Code. Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. San Diego, CA, 107–114Google Scholar
  18. Rieger M, Ducasse S (1998) Visual Detection of Duplicated Code. Proceedings of the ECOOP Workshop on Experiences in Object-Oriented Re-Engineering. Brussels, Belgium, 75–76Google Scholar
  19. Rieger M, Ducasse S, Lanza M (2004) Insights into System-Wide Code Duplication. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Reverse Engineering. Delft, The Netherlands, 100–109Google Scholar
  20. Russinovich M, Solomon D (2005) Microsoft Windows Internals: Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, and Windows 2000. Redmond: MicrosoftGoogle Scholar
  21. Tairas R, Gray J, Baxter I (2006) Visualization of Clone Detection Results. Proceedings of the OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology Exchange. Portland, OR, 50–54Google Scholar
  22. Zhao Y, Karypis G (2005) Topic-Driven Clustering for Document Datasets. Proceedings of the SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. Newport Beach, CA, 358–369Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information SciencesUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations