Search for: All records

The execution of smart contracts on Ethereum, a public blockchain system, incurs a fee called gas fee for its computation and data storage. When programmers develop smart contracts (e.g., in the Solidity programming language), they could unknowingly write code snippets that unnecessarily cause more gas fees. These issues, or what we call gas wastes, can lead to significant monetary losses for users. This paper takes the initiative in helping Ethereum users reduce their gas fees in two key steps. First, we conduct an empirical study on gas wastes in open-source Solidity programs and Ethereum transaction traces. Second, to validate our study findings, we develop a static tool called PeCatch to effectively detect gas wastes in Solidity programs, and manually examine the Solidity compiler’s code to pinpoint implementation errors causing gas wastes. Overall, we make 11 insights and four suggestions, which can foster future tool development and programmer awareness, and fixing our detected bugs can save $0.76 million in gas fees daily. 

Rust is a young systems programming language designed to provide both the safety guarantees of high-level languages and the execution performance of low-level languages. To achieve this design goal, Rust provides a suite of safety rules and checks against those rules at the compile time to eliminate many memory-safety and thread-safety issues. Due to its safety and performance, Rust’s popularity has increased significantly in recent years, and it has already been adopted to build many safety-critical software systems. It is critical to understand the learning and programming challenges imposed by Rust’s safety rules. For this purpose, we first conducted an empirical study through close, manual inspection of 100 Rust-related Stack Overflow questions. We sought to understand (1) what safety rules are challenging to learn and program with, (2) under which contexts a safety rule becomes more difficult to apply, and (3) whether the Rust compiler is sufficiently helpful in debugging safety-rule violations. We then performed an online survey with 101 Rust programmers to validate the findings of the empirical study. We invited participants to evaluate program variants that differ from each other, either in terms of violated safety rules or the code constructs involved in the violation, and compared the participants’ performance on the variants. Our mixed-methods investigation revealed a range of consistent findings that can benefit Rust learners, practitioners, and language designers.