Natural-semantics-based abstract interpretation (preliminary version)

  • David A. Schmidt
Invited Talks
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 983)


The original formulation of abstract interpretation (a.i.) [5] demonstrated clearly that a.i. is a formal-semantics-based methodology for deriving a provably correct, convergent, canonical iterative data flow analysis from a standard semantics of a programming language. But subsequent research in a.i. has obscured the methodology of the topic. For example, the recent slew of papers on closures analysis [2, 3, 17, 18, 21, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43] mix implementation optimizations with specifications and leave unclear exactly what closures analysis is. In this paper, we reexamine the principles of a.i. and reformulate the topic on a foundation of coinductively defined natural semantics. We aim to demonstrate that the intensional and compositional aspects of natural semantics make it an ideal vehicle for formulating abstract interpretations of problems while preserving the essential characteristics of the subject.


Closure Analysis Abstract Interpretation Denotational Semantic Galois Connection Standard Semantic 
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. Aho, R. Sethi, and J. Ullman. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison Wesley, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Banerjee. The Semantics and Implementation of Bindings in Higher-Order Programming Languages. PhD thesis, Kansas State University, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Bondorf. Automatic autoprojection of higher order recursive equations. Science of Computer Programming, 17:3–34, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. L. Burn, C. Hankin, and S. Abramsky. Strictness analysis for higher-order functions. Science of Computer Programming, 7:249–278, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs. In Proc. 4th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 238–252. ACM Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In Proc. 6th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 269–282. ACM Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Inductive definitions, semantics, and abstract interpretation. In Proc. 19th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 83–94. ACM Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Higher-order abstract interpretation. In Proc. IEEE Int'l. Conf. Programming Languages. IEEE Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Th. Despeyroux. Executable specification of static semantics. In G. Kahn, D.B. MacQueen, and G. Plotkin, editors, Semantics of Data Types, pages 215–234. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 173, Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    V. Donzeau-Gouge. Denotational definition of properties of program's computations. In S. Muchnick and N.D. Jones, editors, Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications. Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Goguen, J. Thatcher, E. Wagner, and J. Wright. Initial algebra semantics and continuous algebras. J. ACM, 24:68–95, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    V. Gouranton and D. LeMétayer. Derivation of static analysers of functional programs from path properties of a natural semantics. Technical Report Research Report 2607, INRIA, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    I. Guessarian. Algebraic Semantics. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 99. Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Gunter. Foundations of Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. Hecht. Flow Analysis of Computer Programs. Elsevier, 1977.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    P. Hudak and J. Young. A collecting interpretation of expressions (without powerdomains). In Proc. 15th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 107–118. ACM Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    S. Jagannathan and S. Weeks. A unified treatment of flow analysis in higher-order languages. In Proc. 22d. ACM Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, pages 393–407, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. Jagannathan and A. Wright. Effective flow analysis for avoiding run-time checks. In Proc. Workshop on types for program analysis, number∼bra8130/TPA/proceedings.html, Univ. of Aarhus, Denmark, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    N.D. Jones and S. Muchnick. Flow analysis and optimization of LISP-like structures. In Proc. 6th. ACM Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, pages 244–256, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    N.D. Jones and A. Mycroft. Data flow analysis of applicative programs using minimal function graphs. In Proc. 13th Symp. on Principles of Prog. Languages, pages 296–306. ACM Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    N.D. Jones and M. Rosendahl. Higher-order minimal function graphs. In ??? ???, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    G. Kahn. Natural semantics. In Proc. STACS '87, pages 22–39. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 247, Springer, Berlin, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Kam and J. Ullman. Global data flow analysis and iterative algorithms. J. ACM, 23:158–171, 1976.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    G. Kildall. A unified approach to global program optimization. In Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, 1973.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    P. Lewis, D. Rosenkrantz, and R. Stearns. Compiler Design Theory. Addison-Wesley, 1978.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    A. Melton, G. Strecker, and D. Schmidt. Galois connections and computer science applications. In Category Theory and Computer Programming, pages 299–312. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 240, Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R. Milner and M. Tofte. Co-induction in relational semantics. Theoretical Computer Science, 17:209–220, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    J. C. Mitchell. Type systems for programming languages. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B, chapter 8, pages 367–458. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    M. Mizuno and D. Schmidt. A security flow control algorithm and its denotational semantics correctness proof. Formal Aspects of Computing, 4:727–754, 1992.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    S. Muchnick and N.D. Jones, editors. Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications. Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    A. Mycroft. Abstract interpretation and optimizing transformations for recursive programs. PhD thesis, Edinburgh University, 1981.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    A. Mycroft and N.D. Jones. A relational framework for abstract interpretation. In Programs as Data Objects, pages 156–171. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 217, Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    F. Nielson. Semantic foundations of data flow analysis. Technical Report Report DAIMI PB-131, Aarhus University, Denmark, 1981.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    F. Nielson. A denotational framework for data flow analysis. Acta Informatica, 18:265–287, 1982.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    F. Nielson. Program transformations in a denotational setting. ACM Trans. Prog. Languages and Systems, 7:359–379, 1985.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    F. Nielson. Two-level semantics and abstract interpretation. Theoretical Computer Science, 69(2):117–242, 1989.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    J. Palsberg. Global program analysis in constraint form. In M. P. Fourman, P. T. Johnstone, and A. M. Pitts, editors, Proc. CAAP'94, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 258–269. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    G. D. Plotkin. Lambda-definability in the full type hierarchy. In J. Seldin and J. Hindley, editors, To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, pages 363–374. Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    P. Sestoft. Replacing function parameters by global variables. In Proc. Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, pages 39–53. ACM Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    P. Sestoft. Analysis and Efficient Implementation of Functional Programs. PhD thesis, Copenhagen University, 1991.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    O. Shivers. Control-flow analysis in Scheme. In Proc. SIGPLAN88 Conf. on Prog. Language Design and Implementation, pages 164–174, 1988.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    O. Shivers. Control Flow Analysis of Higher-Order Languages. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    D. Stefanescu and Y. Zhou. An equational framework for flow analysis of higher-order functional programs. In Proc. 1994 ACM Conf. on Lisp and Functional Programming, pages 318–327. ACM Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Schmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing and Information SciencesKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations