Polynomial Constants Are Decidable

  • Markus Müller-Olm
  • Helmut Seidl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2477)


Constant propagation aims at identifying expressions that always yield a unique constant value at run-time. It is well-known that constant propagation is undecidable for programs working on integers even if guards are ignored as in non-deterministic flow graphs. We show that polynomial constants are decidable in non-deterministic flow graphs. In polynomial constant propagation, assignment statements that use the operators +, -,* are interpreted exactly but all assignments that use other operators are conservatively interpreted as non-deterministic assignments.

We present a generic algorithm for constant propagation via a symbolic weakest precondition computation and show how this generic algorithm can be instantiated for polynomial constant propagation by exploiting techniques from computable ring theory.


Constant Propagation Polynomial Ring Assignment Statement Abstract Interpretation Start Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. V. Aho, R. Sethi, and J. D. Ullman. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison-Wesley, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. R. Apt and G. D. Plotkin. Countable nondeterminism and random assignment. Journal of the ACM, 33(4):724–767, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In Proceedings 4th POPL, Los Angeles, California, 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation frameworks. J. Logic Computat., 4(2):511–547, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. H. Davenport, Y. Siret, and E. Tournier. Computer Algebra: Systems and Algorithms for Algebraic Computation. Academic Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. W. Dijkstra. A Discipline of Programming. Prentice Hall, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Fischer and R. LeBlanc. Crafting a Compiler. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Menlo Park, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. O. Geddes, S. R. Czapor, and G. Labahn. Algorithms for Computer Algebra. Kluwer, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. S. Hecht. Flow analysis of computer programs. Elsevier North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Karr. Affine relationships among variables of a program. Acta Informatica, 6:133–151, 1976.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mathematics of Program Construction Group. Fixed-point calculus. Information Processing Letters, 53(3):131–136, 1995.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Y. V. Matiyasevich. Hilbert’s Tenth Problem. The MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Melton, D. A. Schmidt, and G. E. Strecker. Galois connections and computer science applications. In D. Pitt, S. Abramsky, A. Poigné, and D. Rydeheard, editors, Category Theory and Computer Programming, LNCS 240, pages 299–312. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Mishra. Algorithmic Algebra. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. S. Muchnick. Advanced compiler design and implementation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, California, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Müller-Olm and O. Rüthing. The complexity of constant propagation. In D. Sands, editor, ESOP 2001, LNCS 2028, pages 190–205. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. R. Reif and H. R. Lewis. Symbolic evaluation and the global value graph. In Conf. Rec. 4th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages POPL’77, pages 104–118, Los Angeles, CA, January 1977.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Sagiv, T. Reps, and S. Horwitz. Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis with applications to constant propagation. Theoretical Computer Science, 167(1–2):131–170, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Steffen and J. Knoop. Finite constants: Characterizations of a new decidable set of constants. Theoretical Computer Science, 80(2):303–318, 1991.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Winkler. Polynomial Algorithms. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Müller-Olm
    • 1
  • Helmut Seidl
    • 2
  1. 1.University of DortmundDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Trier UniversityTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations