|Comparing 2 programs... firstname.lastname@example.org (Gerald Strout) (1998-09-22)|
|Re: Comparing 2 programs... Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr (Xavier Leroy) (1998-09-22)|
|Re: Comparing 2 programs... karlcz@ISI.EDU (Karl Czajkowski) (1998-09-22)|
|Re: Code similarity. (Was: Comparing 2 programs...) email@example.com (1998-09-22)|
|Re: Code similarity. (Was: Comparing 2 programs...) dgay@barnowl.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1998-09-24)|
|Re: Code similarity. (Was: Comparing 2 programs...) firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Stanchfield) (1998-09-26)|
|From:||email@example.com (Zalman Stern)|
|Date:||22 Sep 1998 23:06:09 -0400|
|References:||98-09-095 98-09-104 98-09-114|
|Keywords:||tools, question, comment|
The moderator wrote:
: [Point well taken, but off topic so I'll declare this argument over. -John]
Hopefully on topic:
Can anyone say what level of "compiler technology" MOSS uses? It
appears the source code is not publically available (to increase the
efficacy of the tool, not for hoarding reasons). I'm just interested
in whether it uses "merely textual" algorithms or does a parse of the
code and then works on the parse trees and symbol table.
Also, has anyone looked at these sort of techniques for program
restructuring? For example undoing the horrid effects of cut and paste
programming. E.g. breaking a program into "fragments" and then
searching for similarity among fragments and semi-automatically
constructing subroutines to replace the fragments.
[Man, do I know some programs that could use that kind of attention.
I'd hope these would be found in "lower CASE" program analysis tools,
but I'm not familiar enough with CASE to know. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.