Refining Static Analyses by Trace-Based Partitioning Using Control Flow

  • Maria Handjieva
  • Stanislav Tzolovski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1503)

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic method of building a more precise static analysis from a given one. The key idea is to lift an abstract domain to the finite sets of its labeled abstract properties. The labels are designed to gather information about the history of control flow and to obtain a finite partitioning of the program execution traces. The abstract operations of the lifted domain are derived from those of the original one. This is a particular instance of the reduced cardinal power introduced by P. and R. Cousot, where the base is the set of labels approximating the control history and the exponent is an abstract domain. The method is applied to the domain of convex polyhedra and to the domain of linear congruences.

Key words

abstract interpretation reduced cardinal power trace semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    F. Bourdoncle. Abstract interpretation by dynamic partitioning. Journal of Functional Programming, 2(4) (1992) 407–435.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Cousot. Semantic Foundations of Program Analysis. In Muchnick and Jones Eds. Program Flow Analysis, Theory and Applications, pp. 303–343, Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Static determination of dynamic properties of programs, In Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Symposium on Programming, pp. 106–130, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 238–252, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Cousot, and R. Cousot, Systematic Design of Program Analysis frameworks. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 269–282, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Cousot, and R. Cousot, Abstract Interpretation and Application to Logic Programs. In Journal of Logic Programming, pp. 103–179, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Cousot and N. Halbwachs. Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 84–97, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Filé and F. Ranzato, Improving abstract interpretations by systematic lifting to the powerset. In Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium, Ithaca, NY, pages 655–669. The MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Granger, Static analysis of linear congruence equalities among variables of a program, In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Theory and Practice of Software Development, pp. 169–192, number 493 in LNCS, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Halbwachs and Y.-E. Proy and P. Raymond, Verification of linear hybrid systems by means of convex approximations, In Proceedings of the International Static Analysis Symposium, pp. 223–237, number 864 in LNCS, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Masdupuy. Array operations abstractions using semantics analysis of trapezoid congruences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Supercomputing, Washington, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Schrijver, Theory of Linear and Integer Programming, John Wiley & Sons, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Handjieva
    • 1
  • Stanislav Tzolovski
    • 1
  1. 1.LIX, Ecole PolytechniqueFrance

Personalised recommendations