Systematic design of program analysis frameworks

ABSTRACT

Semantic analysis of programs is essential in optimizing compilers and program verification systems. It encompasses data flow analysis, data type determination, generation of approximate invariant assertions, etc.

Several recent papers (among others Cousot & Cousot[77a], Graham & Wegman[76], Kam & Ullman[76], Kildall[73], Rosen[78], Tarjan[76], Wegbreit[75]) have introduced abstract approaches to program analysis which are tantamount to the use of a program analysis framework (A,t,ã) where A is a lattice of (approximate) assertions, t is an (approximate) predicate transformer and ã is an often implicit function specifying the meaning of the elements of A. This paper is devoted to the systematic and correct design of program analysis frameworks with respect to a formal semantics.

Preliminary definitions are given in Section 2 concerning the merge over all paths and (least) fixpoint program-wide analysis methods. In Section 3 we briefly define the (forward and backward) deductive semantics of programs which is later used as a formal basis in order to prove the correctness of the approximate program analysis frameworks. Section 4 very shortly recall the main elements of the lattice theoretic approach to approximate semantic analysis of programs.

The design of a space of approximate assertions A is studied in Section 5. We first justify the very reasonable assumption that A must be chosen such that the exact invariant assertions of any program must have an upper approximation in A and that the approximate analysis of any program must be performed using a deterministic process. These assumptions are shown to imply that A is a Moore family, that the approximation operator (wich defines the least upper approximation of any assertion) is an upper closure operator and that A is necessarily a complete lattice. We next show that the connection between a space of approximate assertions and a computer representation is naturally made using a pair of isotone adjoined functions. This type of connection between two complete lattices is related to Galois connections thus making available classical mathematical results. Additional results are proved, they hold when no two approximate assertions have the same meaning.

In Section 6 we study and examplify various methods which can be used in order to define a space of approximate assertions or equivalently an approximation function. They include the characterization of the least Moore family containing an arbitrary set of assertions, the construction of the least closure operator greater than or equal to an arbitrary approximation function, the definition of closure operators by composition, the definition of a space of approximate assertions by means of a complete join congruence relation or by means of a family of principal ideals.

Section 7 is dedicated to the design of the approximate predicate transformer induced by a space of approximate assertions. First we look for a reasonable definition of the correctness of approximate predicate transformers and show that a local correctness condition can be given which has to be verified for every type of elementary statement. This local correctness condition ensures that the (merge over all paths or fixpoint) global analysis of any program is correct. Since isotony is not required for approximate predicate transformers to be correct it is shown that non-isotone program analysis frameworks are manageable although it is later argued that the isotony hypothesis is natural. We next show that among all possible approximate predicate transformers which can be used with a given space of approximate assertions there exists a best one which provides the maximum information relative to a program-wide analysis method. The best approximate predicate transformer induced by a space of approximate assertions turns out to be isotone. Some interesting consequences of the existence of a best predicate transformer are examined. One is that we have in hand a formal specification of the programs which have to be written in order to implement a program analysis framework once a representation of the space of approximate assertions has been chosen. Examples are given, including ones where the semantics of programs is formalized using Hoare[78]'s sets of traces.

In Section 8 we show that a hierarchy of approximate analyses can be defined according to the fineness of the approximations specified by a program analysis framework. Some elements of the hierarchy are shortly exhibited and related to the relevant literature.

In Section 9 we consider global program analysis methods. The distinction between "distributive" and "non-distributive" program analysis frameworks is studied. It is shown that when the best approximate predicate transformer is considered the coincidence or not of the merge over all paths and least fixpoint global analyses of programs is a consequence of the choice of the space of approximate assertions. It is shown that the space of approximate assertions can always be refined so that the merge over all paths analysis of a program can be defined by means of a least fixpoint of isotone equations.

Section 10 is devoted to the combination of program analysis frameworks. We study and examplify how to perform the "sum", "product" and "power" of program analysis frameworks. It is shown that combined analyses lead to more accurate information than the conjunction of the corresponding separate analyses but this can only be achieved by a new design of the approximate predicate transformer induced by the combined program analysis frameworks.

REFERENCES

• 1: Alfred V. Aho , Jeffrey D. Ullman, Principles of Compiler Design (Addison-Wesley series in computer science and information processing), Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1977
• 2: Birkhoff G. {1967}, Lattice theory, AMS Colloquium Pub., XXV, Third ed., Providence, R.I., (1967).
• 3: Cousot P. {1977}, Asynchronous iterative methods for solving a fixed point system of motone equations in a complete lattice, Rapport de Recherche no88, Laboratoire IMAG, Grenoble, (Sept. 1977).
• 4: Patrick Cousot , Radhia Cousot, Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints, Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.238-252, January 17-19, 1977, Los Angeles, California [doi>10.1145/512950.512973]
• 5: Cousot P. & Cousot R. {1977b}, Static determination of dynamic properties of recursive procedures, IFIP WG.2.2 Working Conf. on Formal Description of Programming Concepts, St-Andrews, Canada, North-Holland Pub. Co., (Aug. 1977).
• 6: Patrick Cousot , Nicolas Halbwachs, Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program, Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.84-96, January 23-25, 1978, Tucson, Arizona [doi>10.1145/512760.512770]
• 7: Edsger Wybe Dijkstra, A Discipline of Programming, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997
• 8: Floyd R. W. {1967}, Assigning meaning to programs, Proc. Symp. in Applied Math., vol.19, AMS, Providence, R.I., (1967), 19-32.
• 9: Susan L. Graham , Mark Wegman, A Fast and Usually Linear Algorithm for Global Flow Analysis, Journal of the ACM (JACM), v.23 n.1, p.172-202, Jan. 1976 [doi>10.1145/321921.321939]
• 10: Grätzer G. {1971}, Lattice theory, first concepts and distributive lattices, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Calif., (1971).
• 11: Grätzer G. & Schmidt E. T. {1958}, Ideals and congruence relations in lattices, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar., 9(1958), 137-175.
• 12: C. A. R. Hoare, An axiomatic basis for computer programming, Communications of the ACM, v.12 n.10, p.576-580, Oct. 1969 [doi>10.1145/363235.363259]
• 13: C. A. R. Hoare, Some Properties of Predicate Transformers, Journal of the ACM (JACM), v.25 n.3, p.461-480, July 1978 [doi>10.1145/322077.322088]
• 14: Neil D. Jones , Steven S. Muchnick, Binding time optimization in programming languages: Some thoughts toward the design of an ideal language, Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles on programming languages, p.77-94, January 19-21, 1976, Atlanta, Georgia [doi>10.1145/800168.811542]
• 15: Marc A. Kaplan , Jeffrey D. Ullman, A general scheme for the automatic inference of variable types, Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.60-75, January 23-25, 1978, Tucson, Arizona [doi>10.1145/512760.512768]
• 16: Kam J. B. & Ullman J. D. {1977}, Monotone data flow analysis frameworks, Acta Informatica, 7 (1977), 305-317.
• 17: Gary A. Kildall, A unified approach to global program optimization, Proceedings of the 1st annual ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.194-206, October 01-03, 1973, Boston, Massachusetts [doi>10.1145/512927.512945]
• 18: Zohar Manna, Introduction to Mathematical Theory of Computation, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1974
• 19: Monteiro A. & Ribeiro H. {1942}, L'opéération de fermeture et ses invariants dans les systèmes partiellement ordonnés, Portugal. Math. 3, 171-184.
• 20: Ore O. {1943}, Combination of closure relations, Ann. of Math., 44(1943), 514-533.
• 21: Ore O. {1944}, Galois connections, Trans. AMS, 55 (1944), 493-513.
• 22: Pickert G. {1952}, Bemerkungen über Galois-verbindungen, Archv. Math. J. 3(1952), 285-289.
• 23: Barry K. Rosen, Monoids for rapid data flow analysis, Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.47-59, January 23-25, 1978, Tucson, Arizona [doi>10.1145/512760.512767]
• 24: Scott D. {1972}, Continuous lattices, Lect. Notes in Math. 274, Springer Verlag, 97-136.
• 25: Scott D. {1976}, Data types as lattices, SIAM Comp. 5, 3(Sept. 1976), 522-587.
• 26: Adi Shamir , William W. Wadge, Data Types as Objects, Proceedings of the Fourth Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, p.465-479, July 18-22, 1977
• 27: Tarjan R. E. {1976}, Iterative algorithms for global analysis, in Algorithms and complexity, new directions and recent results, (J. F. Traub ed.), Acad. Press Inc., (1976), 71-101.
• 28: Tenenbaum A. M. {1974}, Type determination for very high level languages, Rep. NSO-3, Comp. Sci. Dept., N.Y. Univ., (Oct. 1974).
• 29: Ward M. {1942}, The closure operators of a lattice, Annals Math., 43(1942), 191-196.
• 30: Wegbreit B. {1975}, Property extraction in well-founded property sets, IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng., SE-1, 3(Sept. 1975), 270-285.