Efficient analysis of concurrent constraint logic programs

  • Michael Codish
  • Moreno Falaschi
  • Kim Marriott
  • William Winsborough
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 700)


The standard operational semantics of concurrent constraint logic languages is not confluent in the sense that different schedulings of processes may result in different program behaviors. While implementations are free to choose specific scheduling policies, analyses should be correct for all implementations. Moreover, in the presence of parallelism it is usually not possible to determine how processes will actually be scheduled. Efficient program analysis is therefore difficult as all process schedulings must be considered. To overcome this problem we introduce a confluent semantics which closely approximates the standard (non-confluent) semantics. This semantics provides a basis for efficient and accurate program analysis for these languages. To illustrate the usefulness of this approach we sketch analyses based on abstract interpretations of the confluent semantics which determine if a program is suspension and local suspension free.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S.D. Brookes and A.W. Roscoe. Deadlock Analysis in Networks of Communicating Processes. Distributed Computing, 4:209–230, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K.M. Chandy and J. Misra. Deadlock Absence Proofs for Networks of Communicating Processes. Information Proc. Letters, 9(4):185, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Codish, M. Falaschi, and K. Marriott. Suspension Analyses for Concurrent Logic Programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 1993. To appear.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Codognet, P. Codognet, and M. Corsini. Abstract Interpretation for Concurrent Logic Languages. In S. Debray and M. Hermenegildo, editors, Proc. North American Conf. on Logic Programming'90, pages 215–232. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract Interpretation: A Unified Lattice Model for Static Analysis of Programs by Construction or Approximation of Fixpoints. In Proc. Fourth ACM Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, pages 238–252, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.-L. Lassez and M. J. Maher. Closures and Fairness in the Semantics of Programming Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 29:167–184, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987. Second edition.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall Int. (UK), 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Peng and S. Purushothaman. Data flow analysis of communicating finite state machines. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(2):399–442, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Saraswat, M. Rinard, and P. Panangaden. Semantic Foundation of Concurrent Constraint Programming. In Proc. Eighteenth Annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. A. Saraswat. Concurrent Constraint Programming Languages. PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, January 1989. Also in ACM Distinguished Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Y. Shapiro. The family of concurrent logic programming languages. ACM Computing Surveys, 21(3):412–510, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Yang and H. Aiso. P-Prolog: a parallel language based on exclusive relation. In E. Y. Shapiro, editor, Proc. Third Int'l Conf. on Logic Programming, volume 225 of LNCS, pages 255–269. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Yelick and J. Zachary. Moded type systems for logic programming. In Proc. Sixteenth Annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 116–124. ACM, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Codish
    • 1
  • Moreno Falaschi
    • 2
  • Kim Marriott
    • 3
  • William Winsborough
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceK.U. LeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformaticaPadovaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceMonash UniversityAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Computer SciencePenn State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations