Version control system tools empower developers to independently work on
their development tasks. These tools also facilitate the integration of changes
through merging operations, and report textual conflicts. However, when
developers integrate their changes, they might encounter other types of
conflicts that are not detected by current merge tools. In this paper, we focus
on dynamic semantic conflicts, which occur when merging reports no textual
conflicts but results in undesired interference - causing unexpected program
behavior at runtime. To address this issue, we propose a technique that
explores the use of static analysis to detect interference when merging
contributions from two developers. We evaluate our technique using a dataset of
99 experimental units extracted from merge scenarios. The results provide
evidence that our technique presents significant interference detection
capability. It outperforms, in terms of F1 score and recall, previous methods
that rely on dynamic analysis for detecting semantic conflicts, but these show
better precision. Our technique precision is comparable to the ones observed in
other studies that also leverage static analysis or use theorem proving
techniques to detect semantic conflicts, albeit with significantly improved
overall performance