Advertisement

Static Single Information Form for Abstract Compilation

  • Davide Ancona
  • Giovanni Lagorio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7604)

Abstract

In previous work we have shown that more precise type analysis can be achieved by exploiting union types and static single assignment (SSA) intermediate representation (IR) of code.

In this paper we exploit static single information (SSI), an extension of SSA proposed in literature and adopted by some compilers, to allow assignments of more precise types to variables in conditional branches. In particular, SSI can be exploited rather easily and effectively to infer more precise types in dynamic object-oriented languages, where explicit runtime typechecking is frequently used.

We show how the use of SSI form can be smoothly integrated with abstract compilation, our approach to static type analysis. In particular, we define abstract compilation based on union and nominal types for a simple dynamic object-oriented language in SSI form with a runtime typechecking operator, to show how precise type inference can be.

Keywords

Horn Clause Symbolic Execution Type Inference Precise Type Execution Context 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    An, J., Chaudhuri, A., Foster, J.S., Hicks, M.: Dynamic inference of static types for Ruby. In: POPL, pp. 459–472 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ananian, C.S.: The static single information form. Technical Report MITLCS-TR-801. MIT (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ancona, D., Ancona, M., Cuni, A., Matsakis, N.: RPython: a Step Towards Reconciling Dynamically and Statically Typed OO Languages. In: DLS 2007, pp. 53–64. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ancona, D., Corradi, A., Lagorio, G., Damiani, F.: Abstract Compilation of Object-Oriented Languages into Coinductive CLP(X): Can Type Inference Meet Verification? In: Beckert, B., Marché, C. (eds.) FoVeOOS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6528, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ancona, D., Lagorio, G.: Coinductive Type Systems for Object-Oriented Languages. In: Drossopoulou, S. (ed.) ECOOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5653, pp. 2–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ancona, D., Lagorio, G.: Idealized coinductive type systems for imperative object-oriented programs. RAIRO - Theoretical Informatics and Applications 45(1), 3–33 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson, C., Giannini, P., Drossopoulou, S.: Towards Type Inference for JavaScript. In: Gao, X.-X. (ed.) ECOOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3586, pp. 428–452. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cytron, R., Ferrante, J., Rosen, B.K., Wegman, M.N., Zadeck, F.K.: Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. TOPLAS 13, 451–490 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Das, D., Ramakrishna, U.: A practical and fast iterative algorithm for phi-function computation using DJ graphs. TOPLAS 27(3), 426–440 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alpern, B., et al.: The jalapeño virtual machine. IBM Systems Journal 39 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foster, J.S., Terauchi, T., Aiken, A.: Flow-sensitive type qualifiers. In: PLDI, pp. 1–12 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griesemer, R., Mitrovic, S.: A compiler for the java hotspottm virtual machine. In: The School of Niklaus Wirth, ”The Art of Simplicity”, pp. 133–152 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heidegger, P., Thiemann, P.: Recency Types for Analyzing Scripting Languages. In: D’Hondt, T. (ed.) ECOOP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6183, pp. 200–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holloway, G.: The machine-SUIF static single assignment library. Technical report, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Novillo, D.: Tree SSA - a new optimization infrastructure for GCC. In: GCC Developers’ Summit, pp. 181–193 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simon, L., Bansal, A., Mallya, A., Gupta, G.: Co-Logic Programming: Extending Logic Programming with Coinduction. In: Arge, L., Cachin, C., Jurdziński, T., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) ICALP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4596, pp. 472–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simon, L., Mallya, A., Bansal, A., Gupta, G.: Coinductive Logic Programming. In: Etalle, S., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) ICLP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4079, pp. 330–345. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singer, J.: Static single information form in machine SUIF. Technical report, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singer, J.: Static Program Analysis based on Virtual Register Renaming. PhD thesis, Christs College (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tavares, A., Pereira, F.M., Bigonha, M., Bigonha, R.: Efficient SSI conversion. In: SBLP 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winther, J.: Guarded type promotion (eliminating redundant casts in Java). In: FTfJP 2011. ACM (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Ancona
    • 1
  • Giovanni Lagorio
    • 1
  1. 1.DIBRISUniversità di GenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations