ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Improving flow analyses via ΓCFA: abstract garbage collection and counting
Full text PdfPdf (274 KB)
Source International Conference on Functional Programming archive
Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming table of contents
Portland, Oregon, USA
SESSION: Session 2 table of contents
Pages: 13 - 25  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-309-3
Also published in ...
Authors
Matthew Might  Georgia Institute of Technology
Olin Shivers  Northeastern University
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 3,   Downloads (12 Months): 37,   Citation Count: 5
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1159803.1159807
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We present two independent and complementary improvements for flow-based analysis of higher-order languages: (1) abstract garbage collection and (2) abstract counting, collectively titled ΓCFA.Abstract garbage collection is an analog to its concrete counterpart: we determine when an abstract resource has become unreachable, and then reallocate it as fresh. This prevents flow sets from merging in the abstract, which has two immediate effects: (1) the precision of the analysis is increased, and (2) the running time of the analysis is frequently reduced. In some nontrivial cases, we achieve an order of magnitude improvement in precision and time simultaneously.In abstract counting, we track how many times an abstract resource has been allocated. A count of one implies that the abstract resource momentarily represents only one concrete resource. This, in turn, allows us to perform environment analysis and to expand the kinds (rather than just the degree) of optimizations available to the compiler.


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
HANNAN, J. Type Systems for Closure Conversion. In Workshop on Types for Program Analysis (1995), pp. 48--62.
5
6
7
 
8
9
 
10
11
12


Collaborative Colleagues:
Matthew Might: colleagues
Olin Shivers: colleagues