Precise Call Graphs for C Programs with Function Pointers

Automated Software Engineering

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 7-26

  Milanova, Ana ^a   Rountev, Atanas ^b   Ryder, Barbara G ^c  

^a RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Call graph; Function pointers; Pointer analysis

Indexed keywords

CALL GRAPHS; FUNCTION POINTERS; POINTER ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; DATABASE SYSTEMS; FLOW CONTROL; GRAPH THEORY; GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES; OPTIMIZATION; PROGRAM COMPILERS; SEMANTICS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; WEB BROWSERS;

C (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE);

EID: 0942288236     PISSN: 09288910     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:AUSE.0000008666.56394.a1     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Andersen, L. 1994. Program analysis and specialization for the C programming language. Ph.D. thesis, DIKU, University of Copenhagen.
2. Antoniol, G., Calzolari, F., and Tonella, P. 1999. Impact of function pointers on the call graph. In European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp. 51-59.
3. Cheng, B. and Hwu, W. 2000. Modular interprocedural pointer analysis using access paths. In Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 57-69.
4. Das, M. 2000. Unification-based pointer analysis with directional assignments. In Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 35-46.
5. Emami, M., Ghiya, R., and Hendren, L. 1994. Context-sensitive interprocedural points-to analysis in the presence of function pointers. In Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 242-257.
6. Fähndrich, M., Rehof, J., and Das, M. 2000. Scalable context-sensitive flow analysis using instantiation constraints. In Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 253-263.
7. Foster, J., Fähndrich, M., and Aiken, A. 2000. Polymorphic versus monomorphic flow-insensitive points-to analysis for C. In Static Analysis Symposium, pp. 175-198.
8. Hind, M. 2001. Pointer analysis: Haven't we solved this problem yet? In Workshop on Program Analysis for Software Tools and Engineering, pp. 54-61.
9. Hind, M., Burke, M., Carini, P., and Choi, J. 1999. Interprocedural pointer alias analysis. ACA Trans. Programming Languages and Systems, 21(4):848-894.
10. Landi, W. 1992. Undecidability of static analysis. ACM Letters on Programming Languages and Systems, 1(4): 323-337.
11. Landi, W. and Ryder, B.G. 1992. A safe approximation algorithm for interprocedural pointer aliasing. In Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 235-248.
12. Ryder, B.G., Landi, W., Stocks, P., Zhang, S., and Altucher, R. 2001. A schema for interprocedural side-effect analysis with pointer aliasing. ACM Trans. Programming Languages and Systems, 23(1): 105-186. An earlier version available as Rutgers Computer Science Department Technical Report DCS-TR-336.
13. Liang, D. and Harrold, M J. 1999. Efficient points-to analysis for whole-program analysis. In Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 199-215.
14. Mock, M., Atkinson, D., Chambers, C., and Eggers, S. 2002. Improving program slicing with dynamic points-to data. In Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 71-80.
15. Murphy, G., Notkin, D., Griswold, W., and Lan, E. 1998. An empirical study of static call graph extractors. ACM Trans. on Software Engineering and Methodology, 7(2):158-191.
16. Reps, T., Horwitz, S., and Sagiv, M. 1995. Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis via graph reachability. In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 49-61.
17. Rountev, A. and Chandra, S. 2000. Off-line variable substitution for scaling points-to analysis. In Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 47-56.
18. Shapiro, M. and Horwitz, S. 1997. Fastand accurate flow-insensitive points-to analysis. In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 1-14.
19. Sharir, M. and Pnueli, A. 1981. Two approaches to interprocedural dataflow analysis. In S. Muchnick and N. Jones, editors, Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications. Prentice Hall, pp. 189-234.
20. Steensgaard, B. 1996. Points-to analysis in almost linear time. In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp, 32-41.
21. Tonella, P., Antoniol, G., Fiutem, F., and Calzolari, F. 2000. Reverse engineering 4.7 million lines of code. Software - Practice and Experience, 30(2):129-150.
22. Wilson, R., and Lam, M. 1995. Efficient context-sensitive pointer analysis for C programs. In Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 1-12.
23. Yong, S., Horwitz, S., and Reps, T. 1999. Pointer analysis for programs with structures and casting. In Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 91-103.
24. Zhang, S. 1998. Practical pointer aliasing analyses for C. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University.
25. Zhang, S., Ryder, B.G., and Landi, W. 1996. Program decomposition for pointer aliasing: A step towards practical analyses. In Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 81-92.