ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Equality-based flow analysis versus recursive types
Full text PdfPdf (208 KB)
Source ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) archive
Volume 20 ,  Issue 6  (November 1998) table of contents
Pages: 1251 - 1264  
Year of Publication: 1998
ISSN:0164-0925
Author
Jens Palsberg  Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 1,   Downloads (12 Months): 26,   Citation Count: 7
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/10.1145/295656.295662
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Equality-based control-flow analysis has been studied by Henglein, Bondorf and Jørgensen, DeFouw, Grove, and Chambers, and others. It is faster than the subset-based-0-CFA, but also more approximate. Heintze asserted in 1995 that a program can be safety checked with an equality-based control-flow analysis if and only if it can be typed with recursive types. In this article we falsify Heintze's assertion, and we present a type system equivalent to equality-based control-flow analysis. The new type system contains both recursive types and an unusual notion of subtyping. We have st if s and t unfold to the same regular tree, and we have ⊥≤t≤⊤ where t is a function type. In particular, there is no nontrivial subtyping between function types.


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
BONDORF, t. AND JORGENSEN, J. 1993. Efficient analyses for realistic off-line partial evaluation. J. of Func. Program. 3, 3, 315-346.
 
4
5
 
6
 
7
8
 
9
 
10
11
12
13
 
14
15
 
16
17