Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic state restoration using versioning exceptions

  • Published:
Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation

Abstract

We explore the semantics and analysis of a new kind of control structure called a versioning exception that ensures the state of the program, at the point when an exception handler is invoked, reflects the program state at the point when the handler is installed. Versioning exceptions provide a transaction-like versioning semantics to the code protected by a handler: modifications performed within the dynamic context of the corresponding handler are versioned, and committed to the store only if the computation completes normally. Similar to the role of backtracking in logic programming, this facility allows unwanted effects of computations to be discarded when exceptional or undesirable conditions are detected.

We define a novel points-to analysis to efficiently track changes to the store within handler-protected scopes. The role of the analysis is to facilitate optimizations that minimize the number of locations which must be restored when a versioning exception is raised. The analysis is defined by a reachability approximation over locations that indicates which objects have been potentially modified within a handler scope. The analysis is defined for programs which support first-class procedures, locations, and exceptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 1. Agbaria, A., Friedman, R.: Virtual-machine-based Heterogeneous Checkpointing. Software Practice and Experience 32(12), 1175–1192 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. 2. Andersen, L.O.: Program Analysis and Specialization for the C programming language. PhD thesis, DIKU, University of Copenhagen (1994)

  3. 3. Appel, A. Compiling with Continuations. Cambridge University Press (1992)

  4. 4. Atkinson, M., Chisholm, K., Cockshott, P.: PS-ALGOL: An Algol with a Persistent Heap. SIGPLAN Notices 17(7), 24–31 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5. Atkinson, M.P., Daynes, L., Jordan, M.J.: Tony Printezis and Susan Spence, An Orthogonally Persistent Java. ACM SIGMOD record 25(4), 68–75 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6. Chase, D., Wegman, M.N., Zadeck, F.K.: Analysis of Pointers and Structures. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation 25(6), 296–310 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7. Consel, C.: Polyvariant Binding-time Analysis for Applicative Languages. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-based Program Manipulation, pp. 66–77 (1993)

  8. 8. Driscoll, J.R., Sleator, D.D., Tarjan, R.E.: Making Data Structures Persistent. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 38(1), 86–124 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. 9. Driscoll, J.R., Sleator, D.D., Tarjan, R.E.: Fully persistent lists with catenation. Journal of ACM 41(5), 943–959 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10. Emami, M., Ghiya, R., Hendren, L.J.: Context-sensitive Interprocedural Points-to Analysis in the Presence of Function Pointers. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation 29(6), 242–256 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11. Felleisen, M., Friedman, D.P.: A Calculus for Assignments in Higher-order Languages. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 314–325 (1987)

  12. 12. Flanagan, C., Sabry, A., Duba, B.F., Felleisen, M.: The Essence of Compiling with Continuations. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation 28(6), 237–247 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13. Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Felleisen, M.: A Programmer’s Reduction Semantics for Classes and Mixins. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on on Formal Syntax and Semantics of Java. Vol. LNCS 1523, pp. 241–269, Springer (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14. Foster, J.S., Fähndrich, M. Aiken, A.: Polymorphic versus Monomorphic Flow-Insensitive Points-to Analysis for C. In: International Symposium on Static Analysis, pp. 175–198 (2000)

  15. 15. Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness. Freeman (1979)

  16. 16. Gay, D., Aiken, A.: Language Support for Regions. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation 36(5), 70–80 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17. Harris, T., Marlow, S., Jones, S.P., Herlihy, M.: Composable Memory Transactions. In: ACM Conference on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. To appear.

  18. 18. Harris, T., Fraser, K.: Language Support for Lightweight Transactions. ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications pp. 338–402 (2003)

  19. 19. Heintze, N.: Set-based Analysis of ML programs. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on LISP and Functional Programming, pp. 306–317 (1994)

  20. 20. Herlihy, M.: Apologizing Versus Asking Permission: Optimistic Concurrency Control for Abstract Data Types. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 15(1), 96–124 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. 21. Horwitz, S.: Precise Flow-insensitive May-alias Analysis is NP-hard. ACM Transactions on Progamming Languages and Systems 19(1), 1–6 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22. Jagannathan, S., Thiemann, P., Weeks, S., Wright, A.: Single and loving it: Must-alias analysis for higher-order languages. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 329–341 (1998)

  23. 23. Jagannathan, S., Weeks, S.: A Unified Treatment of Flow Analysis in Higher-Order Languages. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 393–407 (1995)

  24. 24. Kelsey, R., Hudak, P.: Realistic Compilation by Program Transformation. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 281–293 (1989)

  25. 25. Jones, S.L.P., Reid, A., Henderson, F., Hoare, T., Marlow, S.: A Semantics for Imprecise Exceptions. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 25–36 (1999)

  26. 26. Kung, H.T., Robinson, J.T.: On Optimistic Methods for Concurrency Control. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 6(2), 213–226 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27. Landi W., Ryder, B.G.: A Safe Approximate Algorithm for Interprocedural Pointer Aliasing. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation 27(7), 235–248 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28. Liskov, B., Scheifler, R.: Guardians and actions: Linguistic Support for Robust Distributed Programs. ACM Transactions on Progamming Languages and Systems 5(3), 381–404 (1983)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. 29. Marlow, S., Jones, S.P., Moran A., Reppy, J.: Asynchronous exceptions in Haskell. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 274–285 (2001)

  30. 30. Milner, R., Tofte, M., Harper, R., MacQueen, D.: The Definition of Standard ML. MIT Press (1997)

  31. 31. Palsberg, J.: Closure Analysis in Constraint Form. ACM Transactions on Progamming Languages and Systems 17(1), 47–62 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32. Sagiv, M., Reps, T., Wilhelm, R.: Solving Shape-analysis Problems in Languages with Destructive Updating. Transactions on Progamming Languages and Systems 20(1), 1–50 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33. Sagiv, M., Reps, T., Wilhelm, R.: Parametric Shape Analysis via 3-valued Logic. ACM Transactions on Progamming Languages and Systems 24(3) 217–298 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34. Shapiro II, M., Horwitz, S.: Fast and Accurate Flow-insensitive Points-to Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 24th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 1–14 (1997)

  35. 35. Sinnar, A., Tarditi, D., Plesko, M., Steensgard, B.: Integrating Support for Undo with Exception Handling. Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2004-140 (2004)

  36. 36. Steensgaard, B.: Points-to analysis in almost linear time. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 32–41 (1996)

  37. 37. Stonebraker, M., Hellerstein, J.: Readings in Database Systems, 3rd edn. Morgan-Kaufmann (1998)

  38. 38. Talpin, J.-P.: Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Type and Effect Inference. PhD thesis, University of Paris (1993)

  39. 39. Talpin, J.-P., Jouvelot, P.: Polymorphic Type, Region and Effect Inference. Journal of Functional Programming 2(3), 245–271 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. 40. Tofte, M., Birkedal, L.: A Region Inference Algorithm. ACM Transactions on Progamming Languages and Systems 20(4), 724–767 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41. Tofte, M., Talpin, J.-P.: Region-Based Memory Management. Information and Computation 132(2): 109–176 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. 42. Chakaravarthy, V.T., Horwitz, S.: On The Non Approximability of Points-to Analysis. Acta Informatica 38(8), 587–598 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. 43. Wilson, R.P., Lam, M.S.: Efficient Context-Sensitive Pointer Analysis for C programs. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation Vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1–12 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44. Smolka, G.: The Oz Programming Model. In: Current Trends in Computer Science. LNCS 1000 Springer (1995)

  45. 45. Hanus, M., Kuchen, H., Moreno-Navarro, J.J.: Curry: A Truly Functional Logic Language. In: Proc. ILPS, Workshop on Visions for the Future of Logic Programming (1995)

  46. 46. Shavit, N., Touitou, D.: Software Transactional Memory. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 204–213 (1995)

  47. 47. Welc, A., Jagannathan, S., Hosking, A.L.: Transactional Monitors for Concurrent Objects. European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, pp. 519–542 (2004)

  48. 48. Vitek, J., Jagannathan, S., Welc, A., Hosking, A.L.: A Semantic Framework for Designer Transactions. European Symposium on Programming, pp. 249–263 (2004)

  49. 49. Flanagan,C., Qadeer, S.: A Type and Effect System for Atomicity. ACM SIGPLAN Confererence on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 338–349 (2004)

  50. 50. Rajwar, R., Goodman, J.R.: Transactional Lock-free Execution of Lock-Based Programs. In: ACM Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Systems Vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 5–17 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51. Weimer, W., Necula, G.C.: Finding and Preventing Run-Time Error Handling Mistakes. In: 19th Annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications,1 pp. 419–431 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles

    V. Krishna Nandivada

  2. Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette

    Suresh Jagannathan

Authors
  1. V. Krishna Nandivada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suresh Jagannathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Krishna Nandivada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nandivada, V.K., Jagannathan, S. Dynamic state restoration using versioning exceptions. Higher-Order Symb Comput 19, 101–124 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10990-006-8610-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10990-006-8610-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation