A practical and precise inference and specializer for array bound checks elimination

Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 177-187

  Popeea, Corneliu ^a   Xu, Dana N ^b   Chin, Wei Ngan ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Dependent types; Safety verification; Size properties

Indexed keywords

ARRAY BOUND CHECK; CONTEXT SENSITIVE; DEPENDENT TYPES; GAME PROGRAMMING; IMPERATIVE LANGUAGES; INFERENCE ALGORITHM; INFERENCE MECHANISM; NOVEL TECHNIQUES; ONCE THROUGH; SAFETY VERIFICATION; SOFTWARE PROGRAM;

EXPLOSIONS; SEMANTICS;

INFERENCE ENGINES;

EID: 77950905651     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1328408.1328434     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (45)

1. R. Bagnara, P.M. Hill, and E. Zaffanella. Widening operators for powerset domains. In Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpretation, pages 135-148, 2004.
2. B. Blanchet, P. Cousot, R. Cousot, J. Feret, L. Mauborgne, A. Miné, D. Monniaux, and X. Rival. A static analyzer for large safety-critical software. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 196-207, 2003.
3. R. Bodik, R. Gupta, and V. Sarkar. ABCD: Eliminating array bounds checks on demand. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 321-333, 2000.
4. R. Bodik, R. Gupta, and M.L. Soffa. Complete removal of redundant expressions. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 1-14, June 1998.
5. R. Chatterjee, B. Ryder, and W. Landi. Relevant context inference. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1999.
6. W. N. Chin, S. C. Khoo, and D. N. Xu. Extending sized type with collection analysis. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Partial evaluation and semantics-based program manipulation, pages 75-84. ACM Press, 2003.
7. W.N. Chin and S.C. Khoo. Calculating sized types. In ACMSIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation, pages 62-72, Boston, Massachusetts, January 2000.
8. W.N. Chin, S.C. Khoo, and Dana N. Xu. Deriving pre-conditions for array bound check elimination. In 2nd Symp. on Programs as Data Objects, pages 2-24, Aarhus, Denmark, May 2001. Springer Verlag.
9. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Modular static program analysis. In International Conference on Compiler Construction, 2002.
10. P. Cousot, R. Cousot, J. Feret, L. Mauborgne, A. Miné, D. Monniaux, and X. Rival. The ASTREÉ analyzer. In European Symposium on Programming, pages 21-30, 2005.
11. P. Cousot and N. Halbwachs. Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 84-96, 1978.
12. J. Dean, C. Chambers, and D. Grove. Selective specialization for object-oriented languages. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 93-102, 1995.
13. J.J. Dongarra, P. Luszczek, and A. Petitet. The LINPACK benchmark: Past, present, and future. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 15:1-18, 2003.
14. N. Dor, M. Rodeh, and M. Sagiv. CSSV: towards a realistic tool for statically detecting all buffer overflows in C. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 155-167, 2003.
15. C. Flanagan. Hybrid type checking. In ACMSymposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 245-256, 2006.
16. C. Flanagan and S. Qadeer. Predicate abstraction for software verification. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 2002.
17. C. Flanagan and J.B. Saxe. Avoiding exponential explosion: Generating compact verification conditions. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 2001.
18. B.S. Gulavani and S.K. Rajamani. Counterexample driven refinement for abstract interpretation. In International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 2006.
19. R. Gupta. A fresh look at optimizing array bound checking. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 272-282, New York, June 1990.
20. J. Gustavsson and J. Svenningsson. Constraint abstractions. In Programs as Data Objects II, pages 63-83, Aarhus, Denmark, May 2001.
21. N. Heintze and O. Tardieu. Ultra-fast aliasing analysis using CLA: A million lines of C code in a second. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, 2001.
22. C. A. R. Hoare and J. He. Unifying Theories of Programming. Prentice-Hall, 1998.
23. J. Hughes, L. Pareto, and A. Sabry. Proving the correctness of reactive systems using sized types. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 410-423. ACM Press, January 1996.
24. P. Kolte and M.Wolfe. Elimination of redundant array subscript range checks. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 270-278. ACM Press, June 1995.
25. P. Lam, V. Kuncak, and M. Rinard. Cross-cutting techniques in program specification and analysis. In International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development, March 2005.
26. F. Logozzo and M. Fahndrich. Pentagons: A weakly relational abstract domain for the efficient validation of array accesses. In ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 2008.
27. Mikel Luján, John R. Gurd, T. L. Freeman, and José Miguel. Elimination of Java array bounds checks in the presence of indirection. In ACM Joint Java Grande-IScope Conf., pages 76-85, 2002.
28. A. Mine. The octagon abstract domain. In the Eighth Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, 2001.
29. G. Necula and P. Lee. The design and implementation of a certifying compiler. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 333-344, 1998.
30. T.V.N. Nguyen and F. Irigoin. Efficient and effective array bound checking. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 27(3):527-570, 2005.
31. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Java SciMark benchmark for scientific computing. http://math.nist.gov/scimark2.
32. Simon Peyton-Jones and et al. Glasgow Haskell Compiler. http://www.haskell.org/ghc.
33. C. Popeea and W.N. Chin. Inferring disjunctive postconditions. In ASIAN CS Conference, 2006.
34. C. Popeea, D.N. Xu, andW.N. Chin. A practical and precise inference and specializer for array bound checks elimination. Technical report. http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~corneliu/research/array.tr.pdf.
35. W. Pugh. The Omega Test: A fast practical integer programming algorithm for dependence analysis. Communications of the ACM, 8:102-114, 1992.
36. W. Pugh. Counting solutions to Presburger formulas: how and why. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, 1994.
37. R. Rugina and M. Rinard. Symbolic bounds analysis of pointers, array indices, and accessed memory regions. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 182-195. ACM Press, June 2000.
38. S. Sankaranarayanan, F. Ivancic, and A. Gupta. Program analysis using symbolic ranges. In International Static Analysis Symposium, pages 366-383, 2007.
39. S. Sankaranarayanan, F. Ivancic, I. Shlyakhter, and A. Gupta. Static analysis in disjunctive numerical domains. In International Static Analysis Symposium, Springer LNCS, Seoul, Korea, August 2006.
40. N. Suzuki and K. Ishihata. Implementation of an array bound checker. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 132-143, 1977.
41. A. Venet and G. Brat. Precise and efficient static array bound checking for large embedded C programs. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 231-242, 2004.
42. Y. Wu and J.R. Larus. Static branch frequency and program profile analysis. In Proceedings of the 27th annual international symposium on Microarchitecture, pages 1-11. ACM Press, 1994.
43. H. Xi and F. Pfenning. Eliminating array bound checking through dependent types. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. ACM Press, June 1998.
44. Y. Xie and A. Aiken. Scalable error detection using boolean satisfiability. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 351-363, 2005.
45. Z. Xu, B.P. Miller, and T. Reps. Safety checking of machine code. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 70-82. ACM Press, June 2000.