Closure Analysis in Constraint Form (1995)
| Venue: | ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems |
| Citations: | 55 - 5 self |
BibTeX
@ARTICLE{Palsberg95closureanalysis,
author = {Jens Palsberg},
title = {Closure Analysis in Constraint Form},
journal = {ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems},
year = {1995},
volume = {17},
pages = {47--62}
}
Years of Citing Articles
Bookmark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
OpenURL
Abstract
Interpretation Bondorf's definition can be simplified considerably. To see why, consider the second component of CMap(E) \Theta CEnv(E). This component is updated only in Closure Analysis in Constraint Form \Delta 9 b(E 1 @ i E 2 )¯ae and read only in b(x l )¯ae. The key observation is that both these operations can be done on the first component instead. Thus, we can omit the use of CEnv(E). By rewriting Bondorf's definition according to this observation, we arrive at the following definition. As with Bondorf's definition, we assume that all labels are distinct. Definition 2.3.1. We define m : (E : ) ! CMap(E) ! CMap(E) m(x l )¯ = ¯ m( l x:E)¯ = (m(E)¯) t h[[ l ]] 7! flgi m(E 1 @ i E 2 )¯ = (m(E 1 )¯) t (m(E 2 )¯) t F l2¯(var(E1 )) (h[[ l ]] 7! ¯(var(E 2 ))i t h[[@ i ]] 7! ¯(var(body(l)))i) . We can now do closure analysis of E by computing fix(m(E)). A key question is: is the simpler abstract interpretation equivalent to Bondorf's? We might attempt to prove this u...
