Control flow analysis in scheme
PLDI '88 Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1988 conference on Programming Language design and Implementation
Replacing function parameters by global variables
FPCA '89 Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Functional programming languages and computer architecture
The complexity of type inference for higher-order lambda calculi
POPL '91 Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
Control-flow analysis of higher-order languages of taming lambda
Control-flow analysis of higher-order languages of taming lambda
A unified treatment of flow analysis in higher-order languages
POPL '95 Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
Linear logic: its syntax and semantics
Proceedings of the workshop on Advances in linear logic
Linear-time subtransitive control flow analysis
Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1997 conference on Programming language design and implementation
A practical and flexible flow analysis for higher-order languages
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Principles of Program Analysis
Principles of Program Analysis
Higher-order value flow graphs
Nordic Journal of Computing
Flow Analysis of Lambda Expressions (Preliminary Version)
Proceedings of the 8th Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming
SAS '97 Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Static Analysis
On the Cubic Bottleneck in Subtyping and Flow Analysis
LICS '97 Proceedings of the 12th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
The essence of computation
The circuit value problem is log space complete for P
ACM SIGACT News
Linear lambda calculus and PTIME-completeness
Journal of Functional Programming
Relating complexity and precision in control flow analysis
ICFP '07 Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming
Control-flow analysis of functional programs
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Flow analysis is a ubiquitous and much-studied component of compiler technology--and its variations abound. Amongst the most well known is Shivers' 0CFA; however, the best known algorithm for 0CFA requires time cubic in the size of the analyzed program and is unlikely to be improved. Consequently, several analyses have been designed to approximate 0CFA by trading precision for faster computation. Henglein's simple closure analysis, for example, forfeits the notion of directionality in flows and enjoys an "almost linear" time algorithm. But in making trade-offs between precision and complexity, what has been given up and what has been gained? Where do these analyses differ and where do they coincide?We identify a core language--the linear 茂戮驴-calculus--where 0CFA, simple closure analysis, and many other known approximations or restrictions to 0CFA are rendered identical. Moreover, for this core language, analysis corresponds with (instrumented) evaluation. Because analysis faithfully captures evaluation, and because the linear 茂戮驴-calculus is complete for ptime, we derive ptime-completeness results for all of these analyses.