System F and abstract interpretation

  • B. Monsuez
Contributed Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 983)


This paper presents a construction of the system F (also called system λ2) which uses the framework of abstract interpretation. The construction is based upon the combination of an upper and a lower approximation. First, we abstract the language values of an untyped λ-calculus to very precise types which in a certain sense are the most general types. Then, we choose to abstract the general types to sets of disjunctive λ2 types. Finally, we show that the type system rules of system F compute a subset of the set of λ2 types computed with the abstraction. Henceforth, the type system rules describe an abstract semantics with respect to the defined abstraction.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Co78]
    P.Cousot, Méthodes itératives de construction et d'approximation de points fixes d'opérateurs monotones sur un treillis, analyse sémantigue ties programmes. Thèse d'Etat, Grenoble 1978.Google Scholar
  2. [Co81]
    P. Cousot, Semantic foundations of program analysis, in “Program Flow Analysis: theory and application” edited by S. Muchnick N. Jones, Prentice Hall 1981.Google Scholar
  3. [CoCo77]
    P. & R. Cousot, Abstract Interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of program by construction of approximate fixpoints, Conf. rec of the 4th ACM Symposium on POPL, Los Angeles Calif, Jan 1977.Google Scholar
  4. [CoCo79]
    P. & R. Cousot, Systematic design of program analysis framework, Conf. rec of the 6th ACM Symposium on POPL, Jan 1979.Google Scholar
  5. [DaMi82]
    L. Damas R. Milner, Principal type-schemes for functional programs, Proc. of the ACM Conference on POPL 1982, 207–212.Google Scholar
  6. [Gir72]
    J. Y. Girard, Interprétation fonctionelle et élimination des coupures de l'arithmétique d'ordre supérieure, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paris VII, 1972.Google Scholar
  7. [GuSc90]
    C.A. Gunther, D.S. Scott Semantic domains in J. van Leeuwen (ed.) Formal Models and Semantics, vol. B of Handbook of Theoritical Computer Science, Elsevier 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [JoMy85]
    N.D. Jones, A. Mycroft, A relational framework for abstract interpretation, in “Program as Data Objects”, Proc. of a workshop in Copenhagen Oct. 1985. Ed. Ganziger and Jones, LNCS 215 Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. [Ka88]
    G. Kahn, Natural Semantics, in “Programming of Future Generation Computers” edited by K. Fuchi, M. Nivat, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland) 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [Mon92b]
    B. Monsuez, Polymorphic Typing By Abstract Interpretation, in LNCS 652, Proc. of the conference FST&TCS, December 1993, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  11. [Mon93b]
    B. Monsuez, Polymorphic Types and Widening Operators in Proc. of Workshop on Static Analysis, September 1993, Padua, LNCS 724 Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. [Plo81]
    G. D. Plotkin, A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics, Research Report DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus, Denmark, September 1981.Google Scholar
  13. [Rey74]
    J. Reynolds, Towards a theory of type structure, in Proc. of Programming Symposium, LNCS 19 Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. [Sch86]
    D. A. Schmidt, Denotational Semantics, Allyn and Bacon, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. [Tur85]
    D. Turner, Miranda, a non-strict functional language with polymorphic types, in Functional programming Languages and Computer Architecture, Nancy, LNCS 201 Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. [Well94]
    J. B. Wells Typability and Type Chekcing in the Second-order λ-Calculus are equivalent and undecidable, Boston University Technical Report.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Monsuez
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d'Informatique de l'École Normale SupérieureParisFrance

Personalised recommendations