A Survey of Algorithmic Debugging

"© ACM, 2017. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in ACM Computing Surveys, {50, 4, 2017} https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3106740"[EN] Algorithmic debugging is a technique proposed in 1982 by E. Y. Shapiro in the context of logic programming. This survey shows how the initial ideas have been developed to become a widespread debugging schema ftting many diferent programming paradigms and with applications out of the program debugging feld. We describe the general framework and the main issues related to the implementations in diferent programming paradigms and discuss several proposed improvements and optimizations. We also review the main algorithmic debugger tools that have been implemented so far and compare their features. From this comparison, we elaborate a summary of desirable characteristics that should be considered when implementing future algorithmic debuggers.This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad under grant TIN2013-44742-C4-1-R, TIN2016-76843-C4-1-R, StrongSoft (TIN2012-39391-C04-04), and TRACES (TIN2015-67522-C3-3-R) by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEO-II/2015/013 (SmartLogic) and by the Comunidad de Madrid project N-Greens Software-CM (S2013/ICE-2731).Caballero, R.; Riesco, A.; Silva, J. (2017). A Survey of Algorithmic Debugging. ACM Computing Surveys. 50(4):1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106740S135504Abramson, D., Foster, I., Michalakes, J., & Sosič, R. (1996). Relative debugging. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 69-77. doi:10.1145/240455.240475K. R. Apt H. A. Blair and A. Walker. 1988. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming J. Minker (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Francisco CA 89--148. 10.1016/B978-0-934613-40-8.50006-3 K. R. Apt H. A. Blair and A. Walker. 1988. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming J. Minker (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Francisco CA 89--148. 10.1016/B978-0-934613-40-8.50006-3Arora, T., Ramakrishnan, R., Roth, W. G., Seshadri, P., & Srivastava, D. (1993). Explaining program execution in deductive systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 101-119. doi:10.1007/3-540-57530-8_7E. Av-Ron. 1984. Top-Down Diagnosis of Prolog Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Weizmann Institute. E. Av-Ron. 1984. Top-Down Diagnosis of Prolog Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Weizmann Institute.A. Beaulieu. 2005. Learning SQL. O’Reilly Farnham UK. A. Beaulieu. 2005. Learning SQL. O’Reilly Farnham UK.D. Binks. 1995. Declarative Debugging in Gödel. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bristol. D. Binks. 1995. Declarative Debugging in Gödel. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bristol.B. Braßel and H. Siegel. 2008. Debugging Lazy Functional Programs by Asking the Oracle. Springer-Verlag Berlin 183--200. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11 10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11 B. Braßel and H. Siegel. 2008. Debugging Lazy Functional Programs by Asking the Oracle. Springer-Verlag Berlin 183--200. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11 10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11Caballero, R. (2005). A declarative debugger of incorrect answers for constraint functional-logic programs. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Curry and functional logic programming - WCFLP ’05. doi:10.1145/1085099.1085102Caballero, R., García-Ruiz, Y., & Sáenz-Pérez, F. (2012). Declarative Debugging of Wrong and Missing Answers for SQL Views. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 73-87. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29822-6_9Caballero, R., García-Ruiz, Y., & Sáenz-Pérez, F. (2015). Debugging of wrong and missing answers for datalog programs with constraint handling rules. Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming - PPDP ’15. doi:10.1145/2790449.2790522Caballero, R., Martin-Martin, E., Riesco, A., & Tamarit, S. (2015). A zoom-declarative debugger for sequential Erlang programs. Science of Computer Programming, 110, 104-118. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2015.06.011Caballero, R., & Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (2002). A Declarative Debugging System for Lazy Functional Logic Programs. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 64, 113-175. doi:10.1016/s1571-0661(04)80349-9Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., & Tanca, L. (1989). What you always wanted to know about Datalog (and never dared to ask). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1(1), 146-166. doi:10.1109/69.43410Chen, M., Mao, S., & Liu, Y. (2014). Big Data: A Survey. Mobile Networks and Applications, 19(2), 171-209. doi:10.1007/s11036-013-0489-0Chitil, O., & Davie, T. (2008). Comprehending finite maps for algorithmic debugging of higher-order functional programs. Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of declarative programming - PPDP ’08. doi:10.1145/1389449.1389475Chitil, O., Faddegon, M., & Runciman, C. (2016). A Lightweight Hat. Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on the Implementation and Application of Functional Programming Languages - IFL 2016. doi:10.1145/3064899.3064904O. Chitil C. Runciman and M. Wallace. 2001. Freja Hat and Hood—A Comparative Evaluation of Three Systems for Tracing and Debugging Lazy Functional Programs. Springer Berlin 176--193. O. Chitil C. Runciman and M. Wallace. 2001. Freja Hat and Hood—A Comparative Evaluation of Three Systems for Tracing and Debugging Lazy Functional Programs. Springer Berlin 176--193.O. Chitil C. Runciman and Malcolm Wallace. 2003. Transforming Haskell for Tracing. Springer-Verlag Berlin 165--181. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11 10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11 O. Chitil C. Runciman and Malcolm Wallace. 2003. Transforming Haskell for Tracing. Springer-Verlag Berlin 165--181. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11 10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11Minh Ngoc Dinh, Abramson, D., & Chao Jin. (2014). Scalable Relative Debugging. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 25(3), 740-749. doi:10.1109/tpds.2013.86Faddegon, M., & Chitil, O. (2015). Algorithmic debugging of real-world haskell programs: deriving dependencies from the cost centre stack. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 50(6), 33-42. doi:10.1145/2813885.2737985Faddegon, M., & Chitil, O. (2016). Lightweight computation tree tracing for lazy functional languages. Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation - PLDI 2016. doi:10.1145/2908080.2908104Ferrand, G. (1987). Error diagnosis in logic programming an adaptation of E.Y. Shapiro’s method. The Journal of Logic Programming, 4(3), 177-198. doi:10.1016/0743-1066(87)90001-xFritzson, P., Shahmehri, N., Kamkar, M., & Gyimothy, T. (1992). Generalized algorithmic debugging and testing. ACM Letters on Programming Languages and Systems, 1(4), 303-322. doi:10.1145/161494.161498Fromherz, M. P. J. (s. f.). Towards declarative debugging of concurrent constraint programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 88-100. doi:10.1007/bfb0019403Harman, M., & Hierons, R. (2001). An overview of program slicing. Software Focus, 2(3), 85-92. doi:10.1002/swf.41F. Henderson T. Conway Z. Somogyi D. Jeffery P. Schachte S. Taylor C. Speirs T. Dowd R. Becket M. Brown and P. Wang. 2014. The Mercury Language Reference Manual (Version 14.01.1). The University of Melbourne. F. Henderson T. Conway Z. Somogyi D. Jeffery P. Schachte S. Taylor C. Speirs T. Dowd R. Becket M. Brown and P. Wang. 2014. The Mercury Language Reference Manual (Version 14.01.1). The University of Melbourne.C. Hermanns and H. Kuchen. 2013. Hybrid Debugging of Java Programs. Springer-Verlag Berlin 91--107. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6 10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6 C. Hermanns and H. Kuchen. 2013. Hybrid Debugging of Java Programs. Springer-Verlag Berlin 91--107. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6 10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6Hirunkitti, V., & Hogger, C. J. (s. f.). A generalised query minimisation for program debugging. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 153-170. doi:10.1007/bfb0019407Hughes, J. (2010). Software Testing with QuickCheck. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 183-223. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17685-2_6G. Hutton. 2016. Programming in Haskell. Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK. G. Hutton. 2016. Programming in Haskell. Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK.Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2010). An algorithmic debugger for Java. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. doi:10.1109/icsm.2010.5609661Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2011). Optimal Divide and Query. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 224-238. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24769-9_17Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2011). An optimal strategy for algorithmic debugging. 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2011). doi:10.1109/ase.2011.6100055D. Insa and J. Silva. 2011c. Scaling Up Algorithmic Debugging with Virtual Execution Trees. Springer-Verlag Berlin 149--163. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10 10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10 D. Insa and J. Silva. 2011c. Scaling Up Algorithmic Debugging with Virtual Execution Trees. Springer-Verlag Berlin 149--163. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10 10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10D. Insa and J. Silva. 2015a. Automatic transformation of iterative loops into recursive methods. Information 8 Software Technology 58 (2015) 95--109. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001 D. Insa and J. Silva. 2015a. Automatic transformation of iterative loops into recursive methods. Information 8 Software Technology 58 (2015) 95--109. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2015). A Generalized Model for Algorithmic Debugging. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 261-276. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27436-2_16Insa, D., Silva, J., & Riesco, A. (2013). Speeding Up Algorithmic Debugging Using Balanced Execution Trees. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 133-151. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38916-0_8Insa, D., Silva, J., & Tomás, C. (2013). Enhancing Declarative Debugging with Loop Expansion and Tree Compression. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 71-88. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38197-3_6K. Jensen and N. Wirth. 1974. PASCAL User Manual and Report. Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-662-21554-8 K. Jensen and N. Wirth. 1974. PASCAL User Manual and Report. Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-662-21554-8Jia, Y., & Harman, M. (2011). An Analysis and Survey of the Development of Mutation Testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(5), 649-678. doi:10.1109/tse.2010.62Kamkar, M., Shahmehri, N., & Fritzson, P. (s. f.). Bug localization by algorithmic debugging and program slicing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 60-74. doi:10.1007/bfb0024176S. Köhler B. Ludäscher and Y. Smaragdakis. 2012. Declarative Datalog Debugging for Mere Mortals. Springer-Verlag Berlin 111--122. S. Köhler B. Ludäscher and Y. Smaragdakis. 2012. Declarative Datalog Debugging for Mere Mortals. Springer-Verlag Berlin 111--122.Kouh, H.-J., & Yoo, W.-H. (2003). The Efficient Debugging System for Locating Logical Errors in Java Programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 684-693. doi:10.1007/3-540-44839-x_72Benzmüller, C., & Miller, D. (2014). Automation of Higher-Order Logic. Handbook of the History of Logic, 215-254. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51624-4.50005-8Kowalski, R., & Kuehner, D. (1971). Linear resolution with selection function. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3-4), 227-260. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(71)90012-9K. Kuchcinski W. Drabent and J. Maluszynski. 1993. Automatic Diagnosis of VLSI Digital Circuits Using Algorithmic Debugging. Springer-Verlag Berlin 350--367. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019419 10.1007/BFb0019419 K. Kuchcinski W. Drabent and J. Maluszynski. 1993. Automatic Diagnosis of VLSI Digital Circuits Using Algorithmic Debugging. Springer-Verlag Berlin 350--367. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019419 10.1007/BFb0019419S. Liang. 1999. Java Native Interface: Programmer’s Guide and Reference (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc. Boston MA. S. Liang. 1999. Java Native Interface: Programmer’s Guide and Reference (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc. Boston MA.Lloyd, J. W. (1987). Declarative error diagnosis. New Generation Computing, 5(2), 133-154. doi:10.1007/bf03037396J. W. Lloyd. 1987b. Foundations of Logic Programming (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-642-83189-8 J. W. Lloyd. 1987b. Foundations of Logic Programming (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-642-83189-8W. Lux. 2006. Münster Curry User’s guide (Release 0.9.10 of May 10 2006). Retrieved from http://danae.uni-muenster.de/∼lux/curry/user.pdf. W. Lux. 2006. Münster Curry User’s guide (Release 0.9.10 of May 10 2006). Retrieved from http://danae.uni-muenster.de/∼lux/curry/user.pdf.Lux, W. (2008). Declarative Debugging Meets the World. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 216, 65-77. doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2008.06.034I. MacLarty. 2005. Practical Declarative Debugging of Mercury Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering The University of Melbourne. I. MacLarty. 2005. Practical Declarative Debugging of Mercury Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering The University of Melbourne.Naganuma, J., Ogura, T., & Hoshino, T. (s. f.). High-level design validation using algorithmic debugging. Proceedings of European Design and Test Conference EDAC-ETC-EUROASIC. doi:10.1109/edtc.1994.326833Naish, L. (1992). Declarative diagnosis of missing answers. New Generation Computing, 10(3), 255-285. doi:10.1007/bf03037939H. Nilsson. 1998. Declarative Debugging for Lazy Functional Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation. Linköping Sweden. H. Nilsson. 1998. Declarative Debugging for Lazy Functional Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation. Linköping Sweden.NILSSON, H. (2001). How to look busy while being as lazy as ever: the Implementation of a lazy functional debugger. Journal of Functional Programming, 11(6), 629-671. doi:10.1017/s095679680100418xNilsson, H., & Fritzson, P. (s. f.). Algorithmic debugging for lazy functional languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 385-399. doi:10.1007/3-540-55844-6_149Nilsson, H., & Fritzson, P. (1994). Algorithmic debugging for lazy functional languages. Journal of Functional Programming, 4(3), 337-369. doi:10.1017/s095679680000109xNilsson, H., & Sparud, J. (1997). Automated Software Engineering, 4(2), 121-150. doi:10.1023/a:1008681016679Ostrand, T. J., & Balcer, M. J. (1988). The category-partition method for specifying and generating fuctional tests. Communications of the ACM, 31(6), 676-686. doi:10.1145/62959.62964Pereira, L. M. (1986). Rational debugging in logic programming. Third International Conference on Logic Programming, 203-210. doi:10.1007/3-540-16492-8_76B. Pope. 2006. A Declarative Debugger for Haskell. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Melbourne Australia. B. Pope. 2006. A Declarative Debugger for Haskell. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Melbourne Australia.Ramakrishnan, R., & Ullman, J. D. (1995). A survey of deductive database systems. The Journal of Logic Programming, 23(2), 125-149. doi:10.1016/0743-1066(94)00039-9Riesco, A., Verdejo, A., Martí-Oliet, N., & Caballero, R. (2012). Declarative debugging of rewriting logic specifications. The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 81(7-8), 851-897. doi:10.1016/j.jlap.2011.06.004DeRose, L., Gontarek, A., Vose, A., Moench, R., Abramson, D., Dinh, M. N., & Jin, C. (2015). Relative debugging for a highly parallel hybrid computer system. Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis on - SC ’15. doi:10.1145/2807591.2807605Runeson, P. (2006). A survey of unit testing practices. IEEE Software, 23(4), 22-29. doi:10.1109/ms.2006.91Russo, F., & Sancassani, M. (1992). A declarative debugging environment for DATALOG. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 433-441. doi:10.1007/3-540-55460-2_32E. Y. Shapiro. 1982a. Algorithmic Program Debugging. MIT Press Cambridge MA. E. Y. Shapiro. 1982a. Algorithmic Program Debugging. MIT Press Cambridge MA.Shapiro, E. Y. (1982). Algorithmic program diagnosis. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL ’82. doi:10.1145/582153.582185Shmueli, O., & Tsur, S. (1991). Logical diagnosis ofLDL programs. New Generation Computing, 9(3-4), 277-303. doi:10.1007/bf03037166Silva, J. (s. f.). A Comparative Study of Algorithmic Debugging Strategies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 143-159. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71410-1_11Silva, J. (2011). A survey on algorithmic debugging strategies. Advances in Engineering Software, 42(11), 976-991. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2011.05.024Silva, J., & Chitil, O. (2006). Combining algorithmic debugging and program slicing. Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of declarative programming - PPDP ’06. doi:10.1145/1140335.1140355J. A. Silva E. R. Faria R. C. Barros E. R. Hruschka A. C. P. L. F. de Carvalho and J. Gama. 2013. Data stream clustering: A survey. Comput. Surv. 46 1 Article 13 (July 2013) 31 pages.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2522968.2522981 10.1145/2522968.2522981 J. A. Silva E. R. Faria R. C. Barros E. R. Hruschka A. C. P. L. F. de Carvalho and J. Gama. 2013. Data stream clustering: A survey. Comput. Surv. 46 1 Article 13 (July 2013) 31 pages.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2522968.2522981 10.1145/2522968.2522981SOSIČ, R., & ABRAMSON, D. (1997). Guard: A Relative Debugger. Software: Practice and Experience, 27(2), 185-206. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-024x(199702)27:23.0.co;2-dL. Sterling and E. Shapiro. 1986. The Art of Prolog: Advanced Programming Techniques. The MIT Press Cambridge MA. L. Sterling and E. Shapiro. 1986. The Art of Prolog: Advanced Programming Techniques. The MIT Press Cambridge MA.P. Kambam Sugavanam. 2013. Debugging Framework for Attribute Grammars. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota. P. Kambam Sugavanam. 2013. Debugging Framework for Attribute Grammars. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota.Tamarit, S., Riesco, A., Martin-Martin, E., & Caballero, R. (2016). Debugging Meets Testing in Erlang. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 171-180. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41135-4_10A. Tessier and G. Ferrand. 2000. Declarative diagnosis in the CLP scheme. In Analysis and Visualization Tools for Constraint Programming: Constraint Debugging Pierre Deransart Manuel V. Hermenegildo and Jan Maluszynski (Eds.). Springer-Verlag Berlin 151--174. 10.1007/10722311_6 A. Tessier and G. Ferrand. 2000. Declarative diagnosis in the CLP scheme. In Analysis and Visualization Tools for Constraint Programming: Constraint Debugging Pierre Deransart Manuel V. Hermenegildo and Jan Maluszynski (Eds.). Springer-Verlag Berlin 151--174. 10.1007/10722311_6Zinn, C. (2013). Algorithmic Debugging for Intelligent Tutoring: How to Use Multiple Models and Improve Diagnosis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 272-283. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40942-4_24Zinn, C. (2014). Algorithmic Debugging and Literate Programming to Generate Feedback in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. KI 2014: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 37-48. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11206-0_

Static Analysis for ECMAScript String Manipulation Programs

In recent years, dynamic languages, such as JavaScript or Python, have been increasingly used in a wide range of fields and applications. Their tricky and misunderstood behaviors pose a great challenge for static analysis of these languages. A key aspect of any dynamic language program is the multiple usage of strings, since they can be implicitly converted to another type value, transformed by string-to-code primitives or used to access an object-property. Unfortunately, string analyses for dynamic languages still lack precision and do not take into account some important string features. In this scenario, more precise string analyses become a necessity. The goal of this paper is to place a first step for precisely handling dynamic language string features. In particular, we propose a new abstract domain approximating strings as finite state automata and an abstract interpretation-based static analysis for the most common string manipulating operations provided by the ECMAScript specification. The proposed analysis comes with a prototype static analyzer implementation for an imperative string manipulating language, allowing us to show and evaluate the improved precision of the proposed analysis

Static analysis for ECMAscript string manipulation programs

In recent years, dynamic languages, such as JavaScript or Python, have been increasingly used in a wide range of fields and applications. Their tricky and misunderstood behaviors pose a great challenge for static analysis of these languages. A key aspect of any dynamic language program is the multiple usage of strings, since they can be implicitly converted to another type value, transformed by string-to-code primitives or used to access an object-property. Unfortunately, string analyses for dynamic languages still lack precision and do not take into account some important string features. In this scenario, more precise string analyses become a necessity. The goal of this paper is to place a first step for precisely handling dynamic language string features. In particular, we propose a new abstract domain approximating strings as finite state automata and an abstract interpretation-based static analysis for the most common string manipulating operations provided by the ECMAScript specification. The proposed analysis comes with a prototype static analyzer implementation for an imperative string manipulating language, allowing us to show and evaluate the improved precision of the proposed analysis

Constraint Functional Logic Programming over Finite Domains.

Abstract In this paper, we present our proposal to Constraint Functional Logic Programming over Finite Domains (CFLP (FD) ) with a lazy functional logic programming language which seamlessly embodies finite domain (FD) constraints. This proposal increases the expressiveness and power of constraint logic programming over finite domains (CLP (FD) ) by combining functional and relational notation, curried expressions, higher-order functions, patterns, partial applications, non-determinism, lazy evaluation, logical variables, types, domain variables, constraint composition, and finite domain constraints. We describe the syntax of the language, its type discipline, and its declarative and operational semantics. We also describe TOY(FD), an implementation for CFLP (FD) , and a comparison of our approach with respect to CLP (FD) from a programming point of view, showing the new features we introduce. And, finally, we show a performance analysis which demonstrates that our implementation is competitive with respect to existing CLP (FD) systems and that clearly outperforms the closer approach to CFLP (FD)

Dynamic Partitioning in Linear Relation Analysis. Application to the Verification of Synchronous Programs

We apply linear relation analysis [CH78, HPR97] to the verificationof declarative synchronous programs [Hal98]. In this approach,state partitioning plays an important role: on one hand the precision of the results highly depends on the fineness of the partitioning; on the other hand, a too much detailed partitioning may result in an exponential explosion of the analysis. In this paper we propose to consider very general partitions of the state space and to dynamically select a suitable partitioning according to the property to be proved. The presented approach is quite general and can be applied to other abstract interpretations.Keywords and Phrases: Abstract Interpretation, Partitioning,Linear Relation Analysis, Reactive Systems, Program Verificatio

Garbage-Free Abstract Interpretation Through Abstract Reference Counting

Abstract garbage collection is the application of garbage collection to an abstract interpreter. Existing work has shown that abstract garbage collection can improve both the interpreter\u27s precision and performance. Current approaches rely on heuristics to decide when to apply abstract garbage collection. Garbage will build up and impact precision and performance when the collection is applied infrequently, while too frequent applications will bring about their own performance overhead. A balance between these tradeoffs is often difficult to strike. We propose a new approach to cope with the buildup of garbage in the results of an abstract interpreter. Our approach is able to eliminate all garbage, therefore obtaining the maximum precision and performance benefits of abstract garbage collection. At the same time, our approach does not require frequent heap traversals, and therefore adds little to the interpreters\u27s running time. The core of our approach uses reference counting to detect and eliminate garbage as soon as it arises. However, reference counting cannot deal with cycles, and we show that cycles are much more common in an abstract interpreter than in its concrete counterpart. To alleviate this problem, our approach detects cycles and employs reference counting at the level of strongly connected components. While this technique in general works for any system that uses reference counting, we argue that it works particularly well for an abstract interpreter. In fact, we show formally that for the continuation store, where most of the cycles occur, the cycle detection technique only requires O(1) amortized operations per continuation push. We present our approach formally, and provide a proof-of-concept implementation in the Scala-AM framework. We empirically show our approach achieves both the optimal precision and significantly better performance compared to existing approaches to abstract garbage collection

Particpants' Proceedings on the Workshop: Types for Program Analysis

As a satellite meeting of the TAPSOFT'95 conference we organized a small workshop on program analysis. The title of the workshop, ``Types for Program Analysis´´, was motivated by the recent trend of letting the presentation and development of program analyses be influenced by annotated type systems, effect systems, and more general logical systems. The contents of the workshop was intended to be somewhat broader; consequently the call for participation listed the following areas of interest:- specification of specific analyses for programming languages,- the role of effects, polymorphism, conjunction/disjunction types, dependent types etc.in specification of analyses,- algorithmic tools and methods for solving general classes of type-based analyses,- the role of unification, semi-unification etc. in implementations of analyses,- proof techniques for establishing the safety of analyses,- relationship to other approaches to program analysis, including abstract interpretation and constraint-based methods,- exploitation of analysis results in program optimization and implementation.The submissions were not formally refereed; however each submission was read by several members of the program committee and received detailed comments and suggestions for improvement. We expect that several of the papers, in slightly revised forms, will show up at future conferences. The workshop took place at Aarhus University on May 26 and May 27 and lasted two half days