Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming

PLILP 1996: Programming Languages: Implementations, Logics, and Programs pp 107–121Cite as

A reactive implementation of Pos using ROBDDs

  • Progam Analysis
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1140))

Abstract

The subject of groundness analysis for (constraint) logic programs has been widely studied, and interesting domains have been proposed. Pos has been recognized as the most suitable domain for capturing the kind of dependencies arising in groundness analysis. Its (by now standard) implementation is based on reduced ordered binary-decision diagrams (ROBDDs), a well-known symbolic representation for Boolean functions. Even though several authors have reported positive experiences using ROBDDs for groundness analysis, in the literature there is no reference to the problem of the efficient detection of those variable which are deemed to be ground in the context of a ROBDD. This is not surprising, since most currently implemented analyzers need to derive this information only at the end of the analysis and only for presentation purposes. Things are much different when this information is required during the analysis. This need arises when dealing with languages which employ some sort of delay mechanism, which are typically based on groundness conditions. In these cases, the naïf approaches are too inefficient, since the abstract interpreter must quickly (and often) decide whether a constraint is delayed or not. Fast access to ground variables is also necessary when aliasing analysis is performed using a domain not keeping track of ground dependencies. In this paper we introduce and study the problem, proposing two possible solutions. The second one, besides making possible the quick detection of ground variables, has also the effect of keeping the ROBDDs as small as possible, improving the efficiency of groundness analysis in itself.

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. T. Armstrong, K. Marriott, P. Schachte, and H. Sondergaard. Two classes of boolean functions for dependency analysis. Technical Report 94/211, Dept. Computer Science, Monash University, Melbourne, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. Bagnara. On the detection of implicit and redundant numeric constraints in CLP programs. In M. Alpuente, R. Barbuti, and I. Ramos, editors, Proceedings of the “1994 Joint Conference on Declarative Programming (GULP-PRODE '94)”, pages 312–326, Peñíscola, Spain, September 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Bagnara. A hierarchy of constraint systems for data-flow analysis of constraint logic-based languages. Technical Report TR-96-10, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, 1996. To appear on a special issue of “Science of Computer Programming”.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. Bagnara, R. Giacobazzi, and G. Levi. An application of constraint propagation to data-flow analysis. In Proceedings of “The Ninth Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications”, pages 270–276, Orlando, Florida, March 1993. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(8):677–691, August 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. E. Bryant. Symbolic boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Computing Surveys, 24(3):293–318, September 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Cortesi, G. Filè, and W. Winsborough. Prop revisited: Prepositional formula as abstract domain for groundness analysis. In Proc. Sixth IEEE Symp. on Logic In Computer Science, pages 322–327. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Cortesi, B. Le Charlier, and P. Van Hentenryck. Conceptual and software support for abstract domain design: Generic structural domain and open product. Technical Report CS-93-13, Brown University, Providence, RI, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Cortesi, B. Le Charlier, and P. Van Hentenryck. Combinations of abstract domains for logic programming. In Conference Record of POPL '94: 21st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 227–239, Portland, Oregon, January 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In Proc. Sixth ACM Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, pages 269–282, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation and applications to logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 13(2 & 3):103–179, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. K. Debray. Static Inference of Modes and Data Dependencies in Logic Programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 11(3):418–450, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. Jacobs and A. Langen. Accurate and efficient approximation of variable aliasing in logic programs. In E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, Proc. North American Conf. on Logic Programming'89, pages 154–165. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Jaffar, S. Michaylov, P. Stuckey, and R. Yap. The CLP(\(\mathcal{R}\)) language and system. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 14(3):339–395, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. N. D. Jones and H. Søndergaard. A semantics-based framework for the abstract interpretation of Prolog. In S. Abramsky and C. Hankin, editors, Abstract Interpretation of Declarative Languages, pages 123–142. Ellis Horwood Ltd, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. B. Le Charlier and P. Van Hentenryck. Groundness analysis for Prolog: Implementation and evaluation of the domain prop. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, pages 99–110. ACM Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  17. C. Mellish. Some global optimizations for a Prolog compiler. Journal of Logic Programming, 2:43–66, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  18. V. A. Saraswat. Concurrent Constraint Programming. MIT Press Cambridge, Mass., 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. Van Hentenryck, A. Cortesi, and B. Le Charlier. Evaluation of the domain PROP. Journal of Logic Programming, 23(3):237–278, June 1995. Extended version of [16].

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, Corso Italia 40, 56125, Pisa, Italy

    Roberto Bagnara

Authors
  1. Roberto Bagnara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Herbert Kuchen S. Doaitse Swierstra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bagnara, R. (1996). A reactive implementation of Pos using ROBDDs. In: Kuchen, H., Doaitse Swierstra, S. (eds) Programming Languages: Implementations, Logics, and Programs. PLILP 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1140. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61756-6_80

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61756-6_80

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61756-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70654-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation