Program analysis and systematic testing

  • M. A. Hennell
  • D. Hedley
  • I. J. Riddell
Part of the Software Science and Engineering book series (SSEN)


The authors of this chapter have had considerable experience with the use of automated testing tools, both in the real world of industry and commerce, as well as in a research environment. The automated testing tools referred to are various derivatives of the LDRA Testbeds [1]. These tools in various languages, namely Ada, C, Cobol, Coral 66, Fortran, Pascal, PL/1, and PL/M86 have been used in industry since 1975 and have been the subject of extensive experimentation at the University of Liverpool since 1970.


Basic Block Symbolic Execution Control Flow Graph Data Flow Graph Static Analysis Technique 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    M. A. Hennell, D. Hedley and I. J. Riddell, “Assessing a Class of Software Tools”, Proc. 7th. IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, Orlando, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. A. Hennell and D. F. Yates, “A Configuration Management System for Software Implementation”, Proc. Hawaii Int. Conf. on Systems Sciences, pp. 84-89, January 1981.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    L. D. Fosdick, BRNANL, A Fortran Program to Identify Basic Blocks in Fortran Programs, Report CU-CS-040-74, Computer Science Dept., University of Colorado, 1974.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Ryder, “The PFORT Verifier”, Software Practice and Experience, Vol. 4, pp. 359–377, 1974.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. J. Osterweil and L. D. Fosdick, “DAVE-Validation Error Detection and Documentation System for Fortran Programs”, Software Practice and Experience, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 473–486, September 1976.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. M. Balzer, “Exdams: Extendible Debugging and Monitoring Systems”, AFIPS, Vol. 34, p. 567, 1969.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. G. Stucki and G. L. Foshee, “New Assertion Concepts for Self-Metric Software Validation,” Proc. 1975, Int. Conf. Reliable Software, Los Angeles, pp. 59-71, April 1975.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. E. Howden, “Methodology for the Generation of Program Test Data”, IEEE Transactions on Computing, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 554–559, May 1975.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. L. Hantler and J. C. King, “An Introduction to Proving the Correctness of Programs”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 331–353, September 1976.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    L. A. Clarke, “A System to Generate Test Data and Symbolically Execute Programs”, IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng., Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 215–222, September 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. A. De Millo, R. J. Lipton and F. G. Sayward, “Hints on Test Data Selection: Help for the Practicing Programmer”, Computer, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 34–41, April 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    T. A. Budd, R. J. Lipton and F. G. Sayward, “The Design of a Prototype Mutation System for Program Testing”, AFIPS, NCC, 1978, Vol. 47, pp. 623–627.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. F. Yates and M. A. Hennell, “An Examination of Standards and Practices for Software Production”, Computers and Standards 1, pp. 119–132, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Hedley and M. A. Hennell, “The Causes and Effects of Infeasible Paths in Computer Programs”, Proc. 8th. Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, London, August 1985.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    F. E. Allen and J. Cocke, “A Program Data Flow Analysis Procedure”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 137–147, March 1976.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. Woodward, M. A. Hennell and D. Hedley, “A Measure of Control Flow Complexity in Program Text”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 45–50, January 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. A. Hennell and J. A. Prudom, “A Static Analysis of the NAG Library”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-6, No. 4, pp. 329–333, July 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. E. Knuth, “An Empirical Study of Fortran Programs”, Software Practice and Experience, Vol. 1, pp. 105–113, 1971.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    W. Howden, “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Symbolic Testing”, Software Practice and Experience, Vol. 8, pp. 381–397, 1978.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    L. Lauterbach, preliminary paper presented at CSR Certification Workshop, Gatwick, September 1988. Research Triangle Institute, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    E. Fergus, A. C. Marshall, A. Veevers, D. Hedley and M. A. Hennell, “The Quantification of Software Reliability”, Proc. 2nd IEE/BCS Conf. on Software Engineering, Liverpool, pp. 43-49, May 1988.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. A. Hennell, M. Woodward and D. Hedley, “The Testing of a Software Tool”, Proc. International Symposium on Applications and Software Engineering, Montreal, September 1979, pp. 16-20 (ACTA press, ed. M. H. Hamza, 1980).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Holthouse and Hatch, Proc. Workshop on Testing, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown Copyright and Pitman Publishing 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Hennell
    • 1
  • D. Hedley
    • 2
  • I. J. Riddell
    • 2
  1. 1.University of LiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Liverpool Data Research Associates LtdUK

Personalised recommendations