Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficient analysis of concurrent constraint logic programs

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 1993)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 700))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The standard operational semantics of concurrent constraint logic languages is not confluent in the sense that different schedulings of processes may result in different program behaviors. While implementations are free to choose specific scheduling policies, analyses should be correct for all implementations. Moreover, in the presence of parallelism it is usually not possible to determine how processes will actually be scheduled. Efficient program analysis is therefore difficult as all process schedulings must be considered. To overcome this problem we introduce a confluent semantics which closely approximates the standard (non-confluent) semantics. This semantics provides a basis for efficient and accurate program analysis for these languages. To illustrate the usefulness of this approach we sketch analyses based on abstract interpretations of the confluent semantics which determine if a program is suspension and local suspension free.

Partially supported by ESPRIT Basic Research Action 6707 (‘Parforce’)

Supported in part by NSF CCR-9210975

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. S.D. Brookes and A.W. Roscoe. Deadlock Analysis in Networks of Communicating Processes. Distributed Computing, 4:209–230, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  2. K.M. Chandy and J. Misra. Deadlock Absence Proofs for Networks of Communicating Processes. Information Proc. Letters, 9(4):185, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Codish, M. Falaschi, and K. Marriott. Suspension Analyses for Concurrent Logic Programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 1993. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Codognet, P. Codognet, and M. Corsini. Abstract Interpretation for Concurrent Logic Languages. In S. Debray and M. Hermenegildo, editors, Proc. North American Conf. on Logic Programming'90, pages 215–232. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract Interpretation: A Unified Lattice Model for Static Analysis of Programs by Construction or Approximation of Fixpoints. In Proc. Fourth ACM Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, pages 238–252, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J.-L. Lassez and M. J. Maher. Closures and Fairness in the Semantics of Programming Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 29:167–184, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987. Second edition.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall Int. (UK), 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. W. Peng and S. Purushothaman. Data flow analysis of communicating finite state machines. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(2):399–442, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. V. Saraswat, M. Rinard, and P. Panangaden. Semantic Foundation of Concurrent Constraint Programming. In Proc. Eighteenth Annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  12. V. A. Saraswat. Concurrent Constraint Programming Languages. PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, January 1989. Also in ACM Distinguished Dissertation Series.

    Google Scholar 

  13. E. Y. Shapiro. The family of concurrent logic programming languages. ACM Computing Surveys, 21(3):412–510, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. Yang and H. Aiso. P-Prolog: a parallel language based on exclusive relation. In E. Y. Shapiro, editor, Proc. Third Int'l Conf. on Logic Programming, volume 225 of LNCS, pages 255–269. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  15. K. Yelick and J. Zachary. Moded type systems for logic programming. In Proc. Sixteenth Annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 116–124. ACM, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, K.U. Leuven, Belgium

    Michael Codish

  2. Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informatica, Via Gradenigo 6/A, Padova, Italy

    Moreno Falaschi

  3. Department of Computer Science, Monash University, Australia

    Kim Marriott

  4. Department of Computer Science, Penn State University, PA, USA

    William Winsborough

Authors
  1. Michael Codish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Moreno Falaschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kim Marriott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William Winsborough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Andrzej Lingas Rolf Karlsson Svante Carlsson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Codish, M., Falaschi, M., Marriott, K., Winsborough, W. (1993). Efficient analysis of concurrent constraint logic programs. In: Lingas, A., Karlsson, R., Carlsson, S. (eds) Automata, Languages and Programming. ICALP 1993. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 700. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56939-1_108

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56939-1_108

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-56939-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47826-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation