| Context-sensitive synchronization-sensitive analysis is undecidable |
| Full text |
Pdf
(202 KB)
|
| Source
|
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
archive
Volume 22 , Issue 2 (March 2000)
table of contents
Pages: 416 - 430
Year of Publication: 2000
ISSN:0164-0925
|
|
Author
|
|
G. Ramalingam
|
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY
|
|
| Publisher |
|
| Bibliometrics |
Downloads (6 Weeks): 21, Downloads (12 Months): 125, Citation Count: 29
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
Static program analysis is concerned with the computation of approximations of the runtime behavior of programs. Precise information about a program's runtime behavior is, in general, uncomputable for various different reasons, and each reason may necessitate making certain approximations in the information computed. This article illustrates one source of difficulty in static analysis of concurrent programs. Specifically, the article shows that an analysis that is simultaneously both context-sensitive and synchronization-sensitive (that is, a context-sensitive analysis that precisely takes into account the constraints on execution order imposed by the synchronization statements in the program) is impossible even for the simplest of analysis problems.
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
|
Evelyn Duesterwald , Mary Lou Soffa, Concurrency analysis in the presence of procedures using a data-flow framework, Proceedings of the symposium on Testing, analysis, and verification, p.36-48, October 08-10, 1991, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[doi> 10.1145/120807.120811]
|
 |
3
|
|
| |
4
|
|
| |
5
|
|
 |
6
|
|
 |
7
|
|
| |
8
|
|
 |
9
|
|
| |
10
|
|
 |
11
|
|
 |
12
|
|
 |
13
|
Thomas Reps , Susan Horwitz , Mooly Sagiv, Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis via graph reachability, Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.49-61, January 23-25, 1995, San Francisco, California, United States
[doi> 10.1145/199448.199462]
|
| |
14
|
|
| |
15
|
SHARIR, ~/{. AND PNEULI, t. 1981. Two approaches to interprocedurM data flow analysis. In Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications, S. Muchnick and N. Jones, Eds. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N J, 189-233.
|
| |
16
|
TAYLOR, R. N. 1983. Complexity of analyzing the synchronization structure of concurrent programs. Acta Inforrnatica 19, 57-84.
|
CITED BY 29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun Chen , Steve MacDonald, Towards a better collaboration of static and dynamic analyses for testing concurrent programs, Proceedings of the 6th workshop on Parallel and distributed systems: testing, analysis, and debugging, p.1-9, July 20-21, 2008, Seattle, Washington
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|