Advertisement

Abstract Interpreters for Free

  • Matthew Might
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6337)

Abstract

In small-step abstract interpretations, the concrete and abstract semantics bear an uncanny resemblance. In this work, we present an analysis-design methodology that both explains and exploits that resemblance. Specifically, we present a two-step method to convert a small-step concrete semantics into a family of sound, computable abstract interpretations. The first step re-factors the concrete state-space to eliminate recursive structure; this refactoring of the state-space simultaneously determines a store-passing-style transformation on the underlying concrete semantics. The second step uses inference rules to generate an abstract state-space and a Galois connection simultaneously. The Galois connection allows the calculation of the “optimal” abstract interpretation. The two-step process is unambiguous, but nondeterministic: at each step, analysis designers face choices. Some of these choices ultimately influence properties such as flow-, field- and context-sensitivity. Thus, under the method, we can give the emergence of these properties a graph-theoretic characterization. To illustrate the method, we systematically abstract the continuation-passing style lambda calculus to arrive at two distinct families of analyses. The first is the well-known k-CFA family of analyses. The second consists of novel “environment-centric” abstract interpretations, none of which appear in the literature on static analysis of higher-order programs.

Keywords

Inference Rule Dependence Graph Formal Semantic Abstract Interpretation Galois Connection 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A functional correspondence between evaluators and abstract machines. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ager, M., Danvy, O., Midtgaard, J.: A functional correspondence between monadic evaluators and abstract machines for languages with computational effects. Theoretical Computer Science 342(1),149–172 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ager, M.S., Danvy, O., Midtgaard, J.: A functional correspondence between call-by-need evaluators and lazy abstract machines. Processing Letters 90(5), 223–232 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Conference Record of the Fourth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 238–252. ACM Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: POPL 1979: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 269–282. ACM Press, New York (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Danvy, O., Millikin, K.: A rational deconstruction of landin’s secd machine with the j operator. Logical Methods in Computer Science 4(4) (November 2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danvy, O., Millikin, K.: Refunctionalization at work. Science of Computer Programming 74(8), 534–549 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Midtgaard, J.: Transformation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Higher-Order Procedural Programs. PhD thesis, University of Aarhus (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Might, M., Manolios, P.: A posteriori soundness for non-deterministic abstract interpretations. In: Jones, N.D., Müller-Olm, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5403, pp. 260–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Might, M., Shivers, O.: Improving flow analyses via γcfa: Abstract garbage collection and counting. In: ICFP 2006: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, pp. 13–25. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Might, M., Shivers, O.: Exploiting reachability and cardinality in higher-order flow analysis. Journal of Functional Programming, Special Double Issue 18(5-6), 821–864 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nielson, F., Nielson, H.R.: Infinitary control flow analysis: a collecting semantics for closure analysis. In: POPL 1997: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 332–345. ACM, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielson, F., Nielson, H.R., Hankin, C.: Principles of Program Analysis, Corrected ed. Springer, Heidelberg (October 1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qian, J., Zhao, L., Cai, G., Gu, T.: Automatic construction of complete abstraction by abstract interpretation. In: ICIS 2009: Proceedings of the 2009 Eigth IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 927–932. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reynolds, J.C.: Definitional interpreters for higher-order programming languages. In: ACM 1972: Proceedings of the ACM Annual Conference, pp. 717–740. ACM, New York (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt, D.A.: Abstract interpretation of small-step semantics. In: Selected papers from the 5th LOMAPS Workshop on Analysis and Verification of Multiple-Agent Languages, London, UK, pp. 76–99. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott, D., Strachey, C.: Towards a formal semantics, pp. 197–220 (1966)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shivers, O.: Control flow analysis in Scheme. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1988 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, vol. 23, pp. 164–174. ACM, New York (July 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shivers, O. G.: Control-Flow Analysis of Higher-Order Languages. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wand, M., Siveroni, I.: Constraint systems for useless variable elimination. In: POPL 1999: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 291–302. ACM, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Might
    • 1
  1. 1.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations