Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:58:12.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal multibinding unification for sharing and linearity analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

GIANLUCA AMATO  and
FRANCESCA SCOZZARI
GIANLUCA AMATO
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Economia, Università di Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected])
FRANCESCA SCOZZARI
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Economia, Università di Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the analysis of logic programs, abstract domains for detecting sharing properties are widely used. Recently, the new domain ${\mathtt{ShLin}^{\omega}}$ has been introduced to generalize both sharing and linearity information. This domain is endowed with an optimal abstract operator for single-binding unification. The authors claim that the repeated application of this operator is also optimal for multibinding unification. This is the proof of such a claim.

Keywords

static analysisabstract interpretationsharinglinearityunification
Type
Technical Notes
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , May 2014 , pp. 379 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amato, G., Di Nardo Di Maio, S. and Scozzari, F. 2013. Numerical static analysis with Soot. In Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on State of the Art in Java Program Analysis. SOAP '13. ACM, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Amato, G., Lipton, J. and McGrail, R. 2009. On the algebraic structure of declarative programming languages. Theoretical Computer Science 410, 46, 4626–4671.Google Scholar
Amato, G., Parton, M. and Scozzari, F. 2010a. Deriving numerical abstract domains via principal component analysis. In Proc. of the SAS 2010, Cousot, R. and Martel, M., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6337. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 134–150.Google Scholar
Amato, G., Parton, M. and Scozzari, F. 2010b. A tool which mines partial execution traces to improve static analysis. In Proc. of the RV 2010, Barringer, H., et al., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6418. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 475–479.Google Scholar
Amato, G., Parton, M. and Scozzari, F. 2012. Discovering invariants via simple component analysis. Journal of Symbolic Computation 47, 12, 1533–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amato, G. and Scozzari, F. 2009. Optimality in goal-dependent analysis of sharing. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 9, 5 (September), 617–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amato, G. and Scozzari, F. 2010. On the interaction between sharing and linearity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 10, 1 (January), 49–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amato, G. and Scozzari, F. 2012a. The abstract domain of parallelotopes. In Proc. of the Fourth International Workshop on Numerical and Symbolic Abstract Domains, NSAD 2012, Midtgaard, J. and Might, M., Eds. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 287. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 17–28.Google Scholar
Amato, G. and Scozzari, F. 2012b. Random: R-based analyzer for numerical domains. In Proc. of the LPAR-18, 2012, Bjrner, N. and Voronkov, A., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7180. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 375–382.Google Scholar
Amato, G. and Scozzari, F. 2013. Localizing widening and narrowing. In Proc. of the SAS 2013, Logozzo, F. and Fähndrich, M., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7935. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 25–42.Google Scholar
Armstrong, T., Marriott, K., Schachte, P. and Søndergaard, H. 1994. Boolean functions for dependency analysis: Algebraic properties and efficient representation. In Proc. SAS 1994, Le Charlier, B., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 864. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 266–280.Google Scholar
Bagnara, R., Zaffanella, E. and Hill, P. M. 2005. Enhanced sharing analysis techniques: A comprehensive evaluation. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 5, 1–2 (January), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortesi, A. and Filé, G. 1999. Sharing is optimal. The Journal of Logic Programming 38, 3 (March), 371–386.Google Scholar
Cousot, P. and Cousot, R. 1992. Abstract interpretation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 2, 4 (August), 511–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hans, W. and Winkler, S. 1992. Aliasing and Groundness Analysis of Logic Programs through Abstract Interpretation and Its Safety [online]. Technical Report 92–27, Technical University of Aachen (RWTH Aachen). URL: http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/AIB. Accessed 14 March 14 2013.Google Scholar
Jacobs, D. and Langen, A. 1992. Static analysis of logic programs for independent AND parallelism. The Journal of Logic Programming 13, 2–3 (July), 291–314.Google Scholar
King, A. 1994. A synergistic analysis for sharing and groundness which traces linearity. In Proc. of the ESOP 1994, Sannella, D., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 788. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 363–378.Google Scholar
King, A. 2000. Pair-sharing over rational trees. The Journal of Logic Programming 46, 1–2 (November–December), 139–155.Google Scholar
Levi, G. and Spoto, F. 2003. Pair-independence and freeness analysis through linear refinement. Information and Computation 182, 1 (April), 14–52.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. 1971. Categories for the Working Mathematician. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 5. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Marriott, K., Søndergaard, H. and Jones, N. D. 1994. Denotational abstract interpretation of logic programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16, 3 (May), 607–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthukumar, K. and Hermenegildo, M. V. 1992. Compile-time derivation of variable dependency using abstract interpretation. The Journal of Logic Programming 13, 2–3 (July), 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Søndergaard, H. 1986. An application of abstract interpretation of logic programs: Occur check reduction. In Proc. of the ESOP 1986, Robinet, B. and Wilhelm, R., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 213. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 327–338.Google Scholar