Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Program Transformations on Static Program Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Static Analysis (SAS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11002))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Semantics-preserving program transformations, such as those carried out by an optimizing compiler, can affect the results of static program analyses. In the best cases, a transformation increases precision or allows a simpler analysis to replace a complex one. In other cases, transformations have the opposite effect, reducing precision. This work constructs a theoretical framework to analyze this intriguing phenomenon. The framework provides a simple, uniform explanation for precision changes, linking them to bisimulation relations that justify the correctness of a transformation. It offers a mechanism for recovering lost precision through the systematic construction of a new, bisimulating analysis. Furthermore, it is shown that program analyses defined over a class of composite domains can be factored into a program transformation followed by simpler, equally precise analyses of the target program.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To allow stuttering, one may define a subset of actions to be observable, and let the trace of an execution be the sequence of observable actions on it.

References

  1. Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: The existence of refinement mappings. Theor. Comput. Sci. 82(2), 253–284 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Aho, A.V., Sethi, R., Ullman, J.D.: Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison-Wesley series in Computer Science/World Student Series Edition. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Carter, M., He, S., Whitaker, J., Rakamaric, Z., Emmi, M.: SMACK software verification toolchain. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering - Companion Volume, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA, 14–22 May 2016, pp. 589–592 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Constructive versions of Tarski’s fixed point theorems. Pac. J. Math. 81(1), 43–57 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Cousot, P.: Abstracting induction by extrapolation and interpolation. In: D’Souza, D., Lal, A., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) VMCAI 2015. LNCS, vol. 8931, pp. 19–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46081-8_2

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Conference Record of the Fourth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Los Angeles, California, USA, January 1977, pp. 238–252 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: Conference Record of the Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Antonio, Texas, USA, January 1979, pp. 269–282 (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program transformation frameworks by abstract interpretation. In: Launchbury, J., Mitchell, J.C. (eds.) Conference Record of POPL 2002: The 29th SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Portland, OR, USA, 16–18 January 2002, pp. 178–190. ACM (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Logozzo, F., Barnett, M.: An abstract interpretation framework for refactoring with application to extract methods with contracts. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2012, Part of SPLASH 2012, Tucson, AZ, USA, 21–25 October 2012, pp. 213–232 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cousot, P., Halbwachs, N.: Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In: Conference Record of the Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Tucson, Arizona, USA, January 1978, pp. 84–96 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dijkstra, E.W., Scholten, C.S.: Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Springer, New York (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3228-5

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Fähndrich, M., Logozzo, F.: Static contract checking with abstract interpretation. In: Beckert, B., Marché, C. (eds.) FoVeOOS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6528, pp. 10–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18070-5_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Fedyukovich, G., Gurfinkel, A., Sharygina, N.: Property directed equivalence via abstract simulation. In: Chaudhuri, S., Farzan, A. (eds.) CAV 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9780, pp. 433–453. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41540-6_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Giacobazzi, R., Ranzato, F.: Refining and compressing abstract domains. In: Degano, P., Gorrieri, R., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A. (eds.) ICALP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1256, pp. 771–781. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63165-8_230

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Giacobazzi, R., Ranzato, F., Scozzari, F.: Making abstract interpretations complete. J. ACM 47(2), 361–416 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Gurfinkel, A., Kahsai, T., Komuravelli, A., Navas, J.A.: The SeaHorn verification framework. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 343–361. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Kang, J., Kim, Y., Song, Y., Lee, J., Park, S., Shin, M.D., Kim, Y., Cho, S., Choi, J., Hur, C.-K., Yi, K.: CRELLVM: verified credible compilation for LLVM. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 18–22 June 2018, pp. 631–645 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lattner, C., Adve, V.S.: LLVM: a compilation framework for lifelong program analysis & transformation. In: 2nd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO 2004), San Jose, CA, USA, 20–24 March 2004, pp. 75–88 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Leroy, X.: Formal certification of a compiler back-end or: programming a compiler with a proof assistant. In: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2006, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, 11–13 January 2006, pp. 42–54 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leroy, X.: Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Commun. ACM 52(7), 107–115 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M.: On the relative completeness of bytecode analysis versus source code analysis. In: Hendren, L. (ed.) CC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4959, pp. 197–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78791-4_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Miné, A.: A new numerical abstract domain based on difference-bound matrices. In: Danvy, O., Filinski, A. (eds.) PADO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2053, pp. 155–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44978-7_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Miné, A.: A few graph-based relational numerical abstract domains. In: Hermenegildo, M.V., Puebla, G. (eds.) SAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2477, pp. 117–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45789-5_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Miné, A.: The octagon abstract domain. High. Order Symb. Comput. 19(1), 31–100 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Miné, A.: Symbolic methods to enhance the precision of numerical abstract domains. In: Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K.S. (eds.) VMCAI 2006. LNCS, vol. 3855, pp. 348–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11609773_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Namjoshi, K.S.: Lifting temporal proofs through abstractions. In: Zuck, L.D., Attie, P.C., Cortesi, A., Mukhopadhyay, S. (eds.) VMCAI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2575, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36384-X_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Namjoshi, K.S., Zuck, L.D.: Witnessing program transformations. In: Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M. (eds.) SAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7935, pp. 304–323. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38856-9_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Ranzato, F., Tapparo, F.: Making abstract model checking strongly preserving. In: Hermenegildo, M.V., Puebla, G. (eds.) SAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2477, pp. 411–427. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45789-5_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Ranzato, F., Tapparo, F.: Strong preservation as completeness in abstract interpretation. In: Schmidt, D. (ed.) ESOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 2986, pp. 18–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24725-8_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Ranzato, F., Tapparo, F.: An abstract interpretation-based refinement algorithm for strong preservation. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 140–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31980-1_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Ranzato, F., Tapparo, F.: Generalized strong preservation by abstract interpretation. J. Log. Comput. 17(1), 157–197 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Rinard, M.: Credible compilation. Technical report (1999). In: Proceedings of CC 2001: International Conference on Compiler Construction

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported, in part, by NSF grant CCF-1563393 from the National Science Foundation. We would like to thank Patrick Cousot, Thomas Wies, and Siddharth Krishna for helpful discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bell Laboratories, Nokia, Murray Hill, USA

    Kedar S. Namjoshi

  2. New York University, New York City, USA

    Zvonimir Pavlinovic

Authors
  1. Kedar S. Namjoshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zvonimir Pavlinovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zvonimir Pavlinovic .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Andreas Podelski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Namjoshi, K.S., Pavlinovic, Z. (2018). The Impact of Program Transformations on Static Program Analysis. In: Podelski, A. (eds) Static Analysis. SAS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11002. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99725-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99725-4_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99724-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99725-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation