Control-flow analysis of higher-order languages of taming lambda
Control-flow analysis of higher-order languages of taming lambda
Closure analysis in constraint form
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
A theory of primitive objects: untyped and first-order systems
Information and Computation - special issue: symposium on theoretical aspects of computer software TACS '94
Foundations of programming languages
Foundations of programming languages
Infinitary control flow analysis: a collecting semantics for closure analysis
Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
Analysis for concurrent objects
FMOODS '97 Proceedings of the IFIP TC6 WG6.1 international workshop on Formal methods for open object-based distributed systems
Control Flow Analysis for the pi-calculus
CONCUR '98 Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Concurrency Theory
CPS transformation of flow information
Journal of Functional Programming
CPS transformation of flow information, Part II: administrative reductions
Journal of Functional Programming
Selectors Make Set-Based Analysis Too Hard
Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation
Modular set-based analysis from contracts
Conference record of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
Control-flow analysis of functional programs
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
We introduce a new proof technique for showing the correctness of 0CFA-like analyses with respect to small-step semantics. We illustrate the technique by proving the correctness of 0CFA for the pure 驴-calculus under arbitrary 脽-reduction. This result was claimed by Pals-berg in 1995; unfortunately, his proof was flawed. We provide a correct proof of this result, using a simpler and more general proof method. We illustrate the extensibility of the new method by showing the correctness of an analysis for the Abadi-Cardelli object calculus under small-step semantics.