Practical Object-Oriented Back-in-Time Debugging

Back-in-time debuggers are extremely useful tools for identifying the causes of bugs, as they allow us to inspect the past states of objects no longer present in the current execution stack. Unfortunately the "omniscient" approaches that try to remember all previous states are impractical because they either consume too much space or they are far too slow. Several approaches rely on heuristics to limit these penalties, but they ultimately end up throwing out too much relevant information. In this paper we propose a practical approach to back-in-time debugging that attempts to keep track of only the relevant past data. In contrast to other approaches, we keep object history information together with the regular objects in the application memory. Although seemingly counter-intuitive, this approach has the effect that past data that is not reachable from current application objects (and hence, no longer relevant) is automatically garbage collected. In this paper we describe the technical details of our approach, and we present benchmarks that demonstrate that memory consumption stays within practical bounds. Furthermore since our approach works at the virtual machine level, the performance penalty is significantly better than with other approaches.

Back to the future in one week - implementing a Smalltalk VM in PyPy

We report on our experiences with the Spy project, including implementation details and benchmark results. Spy is a re-implementation of the Squeak (i.e., Smalltalk-80) VM using the PyPy toolchain. The PyPy project allows code written in RPython, a subset of Python, to be translated to a multitude of different backends and architectures. During the translation, many aspects of the implementation can be independently tuned, such as the garbage collection algorithm or threading implementation. In this way, a whole host of interpreters can be derived from one abstract interpreter definition. Spy aims to bring these benefits to Squeak, allowing for greater portability and, eventually, improved performance. The current Spy codebase is able to run a small set of benchmarks that demonstrate performance superior to many similar Smalltalk VMs, but which still run slower than in Squeak itself. Spy was built from scratch over the course of a week during a joint Squeak-PyPy Sprint in Bern last autumn.

Flow-Centric, Back-In-Time Debugging

Conventional debugging tools present developers with means to explore the run-time context in which an error has occurred. In many cases this is enough to help the developer discover the faulty source code and correct it. However, rather often errors occur due to code that has executed in the past, leaving certain objects in an inconsistent state. The actual run-time error only occurs when these inconsistent objects are used later in the program. So-called back-in-time debuggers help developers step back through earlier states of the program and explore execution contexts not available to conventional debuggers. Nevertheless, even back-in-time debuggers do not help answer the question, ``Where did this object come from?'' The Object-Flow Virtual Machine, which we have proposed in previous work, tracks the flow of objects to answer precisely such questions, but this VM does not provide dedicated debugging support to explore faulty programs. In this paper we present a novel debugger, called Compass, to navigate between conventional run-time stack-oriented control flow views and object flows. Compass enables a developer to effectively navigate from an object contributing to an error back-in-time through all the code that has touched the object. We present the design and implementation of Compass, and we demonstrate how flow-centric, back-in-time debugging can be used to effectively locate the source of hard-to-find bugs.

Coping resources in a sample of chronic low back pain patients: Evaluation of the questionnaire for back pain

BACKGROUND The coping resources questionnaire for back pain (FBR) uses 12 items to measure the perceived helpfulness of different coping resources (CRs, social emotional support, practical help, knowledge, movement and relaxation, leisure and pleasure, spirituality and cognitive strategies). The aim of the study was to evaluate the instrument in a clinical patient sample assessed in a primary care setting. SAMPLE AND METHODS The study was a secondary evaluation of empirical data from a large cohort study in general practices. The 58 participating primary care practices recruited patients who reported chronic back pain in the consultation. Besides the FBR and a pain sketch, the patients completed scales measuring depression, anxiety, resilience, sociodemographic factors and pain characteristics. To allow computing of retested parameters the FBR was sent to some of the original participants again after 6 months (90% response rate). We calculated consistency and retest reliability coefficients as well as correlations between the FBR subscales and depression, anxiety and resilience scores to account for validity. By means of a cluster analysis groups with different resource profiles were formed. Results. RESULTS For the study 609 complete FBR baseline data sets could be used for statistical analysis. The internal consistency scores ranged fromα=0.58 to α=0.78 and retest reliability scores were between rTT=0.41 and rTT=0.63. Correlation with depression, fear and resilience ranged from r=-0.38 to r=0.42. The cluster analysis resulted in four groups with relatively homogenous intragroup profiles (high CRs, low spirituality, medium CRs, low CRs). The four groups differed significantly in fear and depression (the more inefficient the resources the higher the difference) as well as in resilience (the more inefficient the lower the difference). The group with low CRs also reported permanent pain with no relief. The groups did not otherwise differ. CONCLUSIONS The FBR is an economic instrument that is suitable for practical use e.g. in primary care practices to identify strengths and deficits in the CRs of chronic pain patients that can then be specified in face to face consultation. However, due to the rather low reliability, the use of subscales for profile differentiation and follow-up measurement in individual diagnoses is limited.

Assessing collective defensive performances in football: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of central back pairs

Ahead of the World Cup in Brazil the crucial question for the Swiss national coach is the nomination of the starting eleven central back pair. A fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis assesses the defensive performances of different Swiss central back pairs during the World Cup campaign (2011 – 2014). This analysis advises Ottmar Hitzfeld to nominate Steve von Bergen and Johan Djourou as the starting eleven central back pair. The alternative with a substantially weaker empirical validity would be Johan Djourou together with Phillippe Senderos. Furthermore, this paper aims to be a step forward in mainstream football analytics. It analyses the undervalued and understudied defense (Anderson and Sally 2012, Statsbomb 2013) by explaining collective defensive performances instead of assessments of individual player or team performances. However, a qualitatively (better defensive metrics) and quantitatively (more games) improved and extended data set would allow for a more sophisticated analysis of collective defensive performances.

Comparison of pain-resilient working individuals to population-based case controls with/without momentary low back pain

Background: Few studies have examined the 20% of individuals who never experience an episode of low back pain (LBP). To date, no investigation has been undertaken that examines a group who claim to have never experienced LBP in their lifetime in comparison to two population-based case–control groups with and without momentary LBP. This study investigates whether LBP-resilient workers between 50 and 65 years had better general health, demonstrated more positive health behaviour and were better able to achieve routine activities compared with both case–control groups. Methods: Forty-two LBP-resilient participants completed the same pain assessment questionnaire as a population-based LBP sample from a nationwide, large-scale cross-sectional survey in Switzerland. The LBP-resilient participants were pairwise compared to the propensity score-matched case controls by exploring differences in demographic and work characteristics, and by calculating odds ratios (ORs) and effect sizes. A discriminant analysis explored group differences, while the multiple logistic regression analysis specified single indicators which accounted for group differences. Results: LBP-resilient participants were healthier than the case controls with momentary LBP and achieved routine activities more easily. Compared to controls without momentary LBP, LBP-resilient participants had a higher vitality, a lower workload, a healthier attitude towards health and behaved more healthily by drinking less alcohol. Conclusions: By demonstrating a difference between LBP-resilient participants and controls without momentary LBP, the question that arises is what additional knowledge can be attained. Three underlying traits seem to be relevant about LBP-resilient participants: personality, favourable work conditions and subjective attitudes/attributions towards health. These rationales have to be considered with respect to LBP prevention.