ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Undecidability of static analysis
Full text PdfPdf (848 KB)
Source ACM Letters on Programming Languages and Systems (LOPLAS) archive
Volume 1 ,  Issue 4  (December 1992) table of contents
Pages: 323 - 337  
Year of Publication: 1992
ISSN:1057-4514
Author
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 11,   Downloads (12 Months): 121,   Citation Count: 42
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/161494.161501
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Static analysis of programs is indispensable to any software tool, environment, or system that requires compile-time information about the semantics of programs. With the emergence of languages like C and LISP, static analysis of programs with dynamic storage and recursive data structures has become a field of active research. Such analysis is difficult, and the static-analysis community has recognized the need for simplifying assumptions and approximate solutions. However, even under the common simplifying assumptions, such analyses are harder than previously recognized. Two fundamental static-analysis problems are may alias and must alias. The former is not recursive (is undecidable), and the latter is not recursively enumerable (is uncomputable), even when all paths are executable in the program being analyzed for languages with if statements, loops, dynamic storage, and recursive data structures.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
3
 
4
 
5
6
 
7
KAM, J. B., AND ULLMAN, J.D. 1977. Monotone data flow analysis frameworks. Acta Informatica 7, 305-317.
8
9
 
10
11
 
12
13
14
 
15
ULLMAN, J. D. 1973. Fast algorithms for the elimination of common subexpressions. Acta Informatica 2, 3, 191-213.
16

CITED BY  42
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: