Control-flow analysis of function calls and returns by abstract interpretation

Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 287-298

  Midtgaard, Jan ^a   Jensen, Thomas P ^b  

^a ROSKILDE UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

Abstract interpretation; Constraintbased analysis; Continuation passing style; Control flow analysis; Direct style; Tail call optimization

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT CONTROL; ABSTRACT INTERPRETATIONS; ABSTRACT MACHINES; CONSTRAINT-BASED; CONSTRAINT-BASED ANALYSIS; CONTINUATION-PASSING STYLE; CONTROL FLOW ANALYSIS; CONTROL-FLOW; EQUIVALENT CONSTRAINTS; FUNCTION CALLS; GALOIS CONNECTION; INTER-PROCEDURAL; RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION; TAIL CALLS;

CONTROL THEORY; FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING; OPTIMIZATION; PROGRAM INTERPRETERS; PULSATILE FLOW;

ABSTRACTING;

EID: 70450175851     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1596550.1596592     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. J. M. Ashley and R. K. Dybvig. A practical and flexible flow analysis for higher-order languages. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 20(4):845-868, 1998.
2. A. E. Ayers. Efficient closure analysis with reachability. In M. Billaud, P. Castéran, M.-M. Corsini, K. Musumbu, and A. Rauzy, editors, Actes WSA'92 Workshop on Static Analysis, Bigre, pages 126-134, Bordeaux, France, Sept. 1992. Atelier Irisa, IRISA, Campus de Beaulieu.
3. D. Cachera, T. Jensen, D. Pichardie, and V. Rusu. Extracting a data flow analyser in constructive logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 342(1): 56-78, 2005.
4. W. D. Clinger. Proper tail recursion and space efficiency. In K. D. Cooper, editor, Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN 1998 Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation, pages 174-185, Montréal, Canada, June 1998.
5. C. Consel and O. Danvy. For a better support of static data flow. In J. Hughes, editor, Proc. of the Fifth ACM Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, volume 523 of LNCS, pages 496-519, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Aug. 1991. Springer-Verlag.
6. P. Cousot. The calculational design of a generic abstract interpreter. In M. Broy and R. Steinbrüggen, editors, Calculational System Design. NATO ASI Series F. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999.
7. P. Cousot. Semantic foundations of program analysis. In S. S. Muchnick and N. D. Jones, editors, Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications, chapter 10, pages 303-342. Prentice-Hall, 1981.
8. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation of algebraic polynomial systems. In M. Johnson, editor, Proc. of the Sixth International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, AMAST'97, volume 1349 of LNCS, pages 138-154, Sydney, Australia, Dec. 1997. Springer-Verlag.
9. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Higher-order abstract interpretation (and application to comportment analysis generalizing strictness, termination, projection and PER analysis of functional languages), invited paper. In H. Bal, editor, Proc. of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Computer Languages, pages 95-112, Toulouse, France, May 1994.
10. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(4):511-547, Aug. 1992a.
11. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation and application to logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 13(2-3):103-179, 1992b.
12. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In B. K. Rosen, editor, Proc. of the Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 269-282, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1979.
13. D. Damian and O. Danvy. Syntactic accidents in program analysis: On the impact of the CPS transformation. Journal of Functional Programming, 13(5):867-904, 2003. A preliminary version was presented at the 2000 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming.
14. O. Danvy. Three steps for the CPS transformation. Technical Report CIS- 92-2, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, Dec. 1991.
15. B. A. Davey and H. A. Priestley. Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, second edition, 2002.
16. S. K. Debray and T. A. Proebsting. Interprocedural control flow analysis of first-order programs with tail-call optimization. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 19(4):568-585, 1997.
17. C. Flanagan, A. Sabry, B. F. Duba, and M. Felleisen. The essence of compiling with continuations. In D. W. Wall, editor, Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN 1993 Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation, pages 237-247, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 1993.
18. K. L. S. Gasser, F. Nielson, and H. R. Nielson. Systematic realisation of control flow analyses for CML. In M. Tofte, editor, Proc. of the Second ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, pages 38-51, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 1997.
19. R. Giacobazzi, F. Ranzato, and F. Scozzari. Making abstract interpretations complete. J. ACM, 47(2):361-416, 2000.
20. N. Heintze. Set-based program analysis of ML programs. In C. L. Talcott, editor, Proc. of the 1994 ACM Conference on Lisp and Functional Programming, LISP Pointers, Vol. VII, No. 3, pages 306-317, Orlando, Florida, June 1994.
21. N. D. Jones. Flow analysis of lambda expressions (preliminary version). In S. Even and O. Kariv, editors, Automata, Languages and Programming, 8th Colloquium, Acre (Akko), volume 115 of LNCS, pages 114-128, Israel, July 1981. Springer-Verlag.
22. J. Midtgaard. Control-flow analysis of functional programs. Technical Report BRICS RS-07-18, Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark, Dec. 2007. Accepted for publication in ACM Computing Surveys.
23. J. Midtgaard and T. Jensen. A calculational approach to control-flow analysis by abstract interpretation. In M. Alpuente and G. Vidal, editors, Static Analysis, 15th International Symposium, SAS 2008, volume 5079 of LNCS, pages 347-362, Valencia, Spain, July 2008a. Springer-Verlag.
24. J. Midtgaard and T. P. Jensen. Control-flow analysis of function calls and returns by abstract interpretation. Rapport de Recherche RR-6681, INRIA Rennes - Bretagne Atlantique, Oct. 2008b.
25. M. Might and O. Shivers. Environmental analysis via ΔCFA. In S. Peyton Jones, editor, Proc. of the 33rd Annual ACMSymposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 127-140, Charleston, South Carolina, Jan. 2006.
26. R. Milner and M. Tofte. Co-induction in relational semantics. Theoretical Computer Science, 87(1):209-220, 1991.
27. F. Nielson and H. R. Nielson. Infinitary control flow analysis: a collecting semantics for closure analysis. In N. D. Jones, editor, Proc. of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 332-345, Paris, France, Jan. 1997.
28. F. Nielson, H. R. Nielson, and C. Hankin. Principles of Program Analysis. Springer-Verlag, 1999.
29. H. R. Nielson and F. Nielson. Flow logic: a multi-paradigmatic approach to static analysis. In T.Æ.Mogensen, D. A. Schmidt, and I. H. Sudborough, editors, The Essence of Computation: Complexity, Analysis, Transformation. Essays Dedicated to Neil D. Jones, volume 2566 of LNCS, pages 223-244. Springer-Verlag, 2002.
30. J. Palsberg. Closure analysis in constraint form. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 17(1):47-62, 1995.
31. J. Palsberg and M. I. Schwartzbach. Safety analysis versus type inference. Information and Computation, 118(1):128-141, 1995.
32. J. Palsberg and M.Wand. CPS transformation of flow information. Journal of Functional Programming, 13(5):905-923, 2003.
33. D. Pichardie. Interprétation abstraite en logique intuitioniste: extraction d'analyseurs Java certifiés. PhD thesis, Université de Rennes 1, Sept. 2005.
34. A. Sabry and M. Felleisen. Is continuation-passing useful for data flow analysis? In V. Sarkar, editor, Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN 1994 Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation, pages 1-12, Orlando, Florida, June 1994.
35. P. Sestoft. Replacing function parameters by global variables. In J. E. Stoy, editor, Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, pages 39-53, London, England, Sept. 1989.
36. O. Shivers. Control-flow analysis in Scheme. In M. D. Schwartz, editor, Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN 1988 Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation, pages 164-174, Atlanta, Georgia, June 1988.
37. F. Spoto and T. P. Jensen. Class analyses as abstract interpretations of trace semantics. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 25(5):578-630, 2003.