Advertisement

Opium — An advanced debugging system

  • Mireille Ducassé
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 636)

Keywords

Logic Program Execution Trace Trace Line Abstract View Prolog System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Bergantz and J. Hassell. Information relationships in Prolog programs: how do programmers comprehend functionality? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35:313–328, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Brayshaw and M. Eisenstadt. Adding data and procedure abstraction to the Transparent Prolog Machine (TPM). In Proceedings of 5th Int. Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 532–547, Seattle, August 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bruegge and P. Hibbard. Generalized path expressions: A high-level debugging mechanism. The Journal of Systems and Software, 3:265–276, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.D. Dewar and J.G. Cleary. Graphical display of complex information within a Prolog debugger. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 25(5):503–521, November 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Ducassé. Abstract views of Prolog executions in Opium. In V. Saraswat and K. Ueda, editors, Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium, pages 18–32, San Diego, October 1991. ALP, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Ducassé. Analysis of failing Prolog executions. In Actes des Journées Francophones sur la Programmation Logique, Mai 1992. University of Lille, France.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Ducassé. An extendable trace analyser to support automated debugging. PhD thesis, University of Rennes, France, June 1992. Numéro d'ordre 758. European Doctorate. In English.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Ducassé and A.-M. Emde. A high-level debugging environment for Prolog. Opium user's manual. Technical Report TR-LP-60, ECRC, May 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Ducassé and A.-M. Emde. Opium: a debugging environment for Prolog development and debugging research. ACM Software Engineering Notes, 16(l):54–59, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Eisenstadt and M. Brayshaw. The Transparent Prolog Machine(TPM): an execution model and graphical debugger for logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 5(4):277–342, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.-M. Emde and M. Ducassé. Automated debugging of non-terminating Prolog programs. In Proceedings of the ICLP'90 Pre-conference Workshop on Logic Programming Environments, June 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.S. Johnson. Dispel: A run-time debugging language. Computer languages, 6:79–94, 1981.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.H. LeDoux and D.S. Parker. Saving traces for Ada debugging. In Proceedings of the ADA International Conference, pages 97–108, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Meier et al. SEPIA — an extendible Prolog system. In Proceedings of the IFIP '89, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.L. Powell and M.A. Linton. A database model of debugging. In M.S. Johnson, editor, ACM SIGSOFT/SIGPLAN Software Engineering Symposium on high-level debugging, pages 67–70. ACM, March 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E.Y. Shapiro. Algorithmic Program Debugging. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Sterling and E. Shapiro. The Art of Prolog. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mireille Ducassé
    • 1
  1. 1.European Computer-Industry Research CentreMunich 81Germany

Personalised recommendations