Pair-sharing over rational trees

Journal of Logic Programming

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 139-155

  King, Andy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; CONSTRAINT THEORY; DATA STRUCTURES; FORMAL LOGIC; OPTIMIZATION; PROLOG (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); THEOREM PROVING;

ABSTRACT INTERPRETATION; HERBRAND UNIFICATION; RATIONAL TREE CONSTRAINTS; SHARING ANALYSIS;

LOGIC PROGRAMMING;

EID: 0034325936     PISSN: 07431066     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0743-1066(00)00009-1     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. T. Armstrong, K. Marriott, P. Schachte, H. Søndergaard, Two classes of boolean functions for dependency analysis, Science of Computer Programming 31 (1) (1998) 3-45.
2. J. Chang, A. Despain, Semi-intelligent backtracking of prolog based static data dependency analysis, in: International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, IEEE Computer Society, 1985.
3. M. Codish, D. Dams, E. Yardeni, Derivation and safety of an abstract unification algorithm for groundness and aliasing analysis, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1991, pp. 79-93 (Long version available as technical report CS90-28 from the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel).
4. M. Codish, A. Mulkers, M. Bruynooghe, M. García de la Banda, M. Hermenegildo, Improving abstract interpretation by combining domains, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 17 (1) (1995) 28-44.
5. A. Colmerauer, Prolog and infinite trees, in: K.L. Clark, S.Å. Tarnland (Eds.), Logic Programming, APIC Studies in Data Processing, vol. 16, Academic Press, New York, 1982, pp. 231-251.
6. B. Courcelle, Fundamental properties of infinite trees, Theoretical Computer Science 25 (1983) 95-169.
7. D. Dams, Personal communication on lemma 2.2 of [3], July 1993.
8. P. Hill, R. Bagnara, E. Zaffanella, The correctness of set-sharing, in: International Symposium on Static Analysis, LNCS 1503, Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp. 99-114 (Long version available as University of Leeds technical report number 98.03 via http://www.scs.leeds.ac.uk/services/reports/1998.html).
9. B. Intrigila, M. Venturini Zilli, A remark on infinite matching vs infinite unification, Journal of Symbolic Computation 21 (3) (1996) 2289-2292.
10. D. Jacobs, A. Langen, Static analysis of logic programs, Journal of Logic Programming (1992) 154-314.
11. J. Jaffar, Efficient unification over infinite trees, New Generation Computing 2 (3) (1984) 207-219.
12. T. Keisu, Tree constraints, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Teleinformatics, Stockholm, Sweden, 1991 (Also available as a SICS Dissertation, Series 16).
13. A. King, A synergistic analysis for sharing and groundness which traces linearity, in: Proceedings of the Fifth European Symposium on Programming, LNCS 788, Springer, Berlin, 1994, pp. 363-378.
14. C. Mellish, Abstract interpretation of prolog programs, in: Third International Conference on Logic Programming, LNCS 225, Springer, Berlin, 1986, pp. 463-474.
15. K. Muthukumar, M. Hermenegildo, Compile-time derivation of variable dependency through abstract interpretation, Journal of Logic Programming (1992) 315-437.
16. H. Søndergaard, An application of the abstract interpretation of logic programs: occur-check reduction, in: European Symposium on Programming, LNCS 213, Springer, Berlin, 1986, pp. 327-338.
17. A. Taylor, High performance prolog implementation, Ph.D. Thesis, Basser Department of Computer Science, Sydney, Australia, July 1991.