Evaluating the precision of static reference analysis using profiling

ABSTRACT

Program analyses and optimizations of Java programs require reference information that determines the instances that may be accessed through dereferences. Reference information can be computed using reference analysis. This paper presents a set of studies that evaluate the precision of two existing approaches for identifying instances and one approach for computing reference information in a reference analysis. The studies use dynamic reference information collected during run-time as a lower bound approximation to the precise reference information. The studies measure the precision of an existing approach by comparing the information computed using the approach with the lower bound approximation. The paper also presents case studies that attempt to identify the cases under which an existing approach is not effective. The presented studies provide information that may guide the usage of existing reference-analysis techniques and the development of new reference analysis techniques.

REFERENCES

• 1: L. Andersen. Program analysis and specialization for the C programming language. Technical Report 94-19, University of Copenhagen, 1994.
• 2: Ramkrishna Chatterjee , Barbara G. Ryder , William A. Landi, Relevant context inference, Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.133-146, January 20-22, 1999, San Antonio, Texas, United States [doi>10.1145/292540.292554]
• 3: Jong-Deok Choi , Michael Burke , Paul Carini, Efficient flow-sensitive interprocedural computation of pointer-induced aliases and side effects, Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.232-245, March 1993, Charleston, South Carolina, United States [doi>10.1145/158511.158639]
• 4: Manuvir Das, Unification-based pointer analysis with directional assignments, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2000 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.35-46, June 18-21, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
• 5: Alain Deutsch, Interprocedural may-alias analysis for pointers: beyond k-limiting, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1994 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.230-241, June 20-24, 1994, Orlando, Florida, United States
• 6: Laurie J. Hendren , Joseph Hummell , Alexandru Nicolau, Abstractions for recursive pointer data structures: improving the analysis and transformation of imperative programs, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1992 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.249-260, June 15-19, 1992, San Francisco, California, United States
• 7: William Landi , Barbara G. Ryder, A safe approximate algorithm for interprocedural aliasing, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.27 n.7, p.235-248, July 1992
• 8: Donglin Liang , Mary Jean Harrold, Efficient points-to analysis for whole-program analysis, Proceedings of the 7th European software engineering conference held jointly with the 7th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.199-215, September 06-10, 1999, Toulouse, France
• 9: Donglin Liang , Maikel Pennings , Mary Jean Harrold, Extending and evaluating flow-insenstitive and context-insensitive points-to analyses for Java, Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering, p.73-79, June 2001, Snowbird, Utah, United States [doi>10.1145/379605.379676]
• 10: Markus Mock , Manuvir Das , Craig Chambers , Susan J. Eggers, Dynamic points-to sets: a comparison with static analyses and potential applications in program understanding and optimization, Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering, p.66-72, June 2001, Snowbird, Utah, United States [doi>10.1145/379605.379671]
• 11: G. Ramalingam, The undecidability of aliasing, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.16 n.5, p.1467-1471, Sept. 1994 [doi>10.1145/186025.186041]
• 12: Atanas Rountev , Ana Milanova , Barbara G. Ryder, Points-to analysis for Java using annotated constraints, Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, p.43-55, October 14-18, 2001, Tampa Bay, FL, USA
• 13: Mooly Sagiv , Thomas Reps , Reinhard Wilhelm, Solving shape-analysis problems in languages with destructive updating, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.20 n.1, p.1-50, Jan. 1998 [doi>10.1145/271510.271517]
• 14: Marc Shapiro , Susan Horwitz, Fast and accurate flow-insensitive points-to analysis, Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.1-14, January 15-17, 1997, Paris, France [doi>10.1145/263699.263703]
• 15: M. Sharir and A. Pnueli. Two approaches to interprocedural data-flow analysis. In S. S. Muchnick and N. D. Jones, editors, Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Application, pages 189-223. 1981.
• 16: Bjarne Steensgaard, Points-to analysis in almost linear time, Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.32-41, January 21-24, 1996, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, United States [doi>10.1145/237721.237727]
• 17: M. Streckenbach and G. Snelting. Points-to for java: A general framework and an empirical comparison. Technical report, University Passau, Nov. 2000.