Resolving and exploiting the k-CFA paradox: illuminating functional vs. object-oriented program analysis

Abstract

Low-level program analysis is a fundamental problem, taking the shape of "flow analysis" in functional languages and "points-to" analysis in imperative and object-oriented languages. Despite the similarities, the vocabulary and results in the two communities remain largely distinct, with limited cross-understanding. One of the few links is Shivers's k-CFA work, which has advanced the concept of "context-sensitive analysis" and is widely known in both communities.

Recent results indicate that the relationship between the functional and object-oriented incarnations of k-CFA is not as well understood as thought. Van Horn and Mairson proved k-CFA for k ≥ 1 to be EXPTIME-complete; hence, no polynomial-time algorithm can exist. Yet, there are several polynomial-time formulations of context-sensitive points-to analyses in object-oriented languages. Thus, it seems that functional k-CFA may actually be a profoundly different analysis from object-oriented k-CFA. We resolve this paradox by showing that the exact same specification of k-CFA is polynomial-time for object-oriented languages yet exponential-time for functional ones: objects and closures are subtly different, in a way that interacts crucially with context-sensitivity and complexity. This illumination leads to an immediate payoff: by projecting the object-oriented treatment of objects onto closures, we derive a polynomial-time hierarchy of context-sensitive CFAs for functional programs.

References

1. Andrew W. Appel. Compiling with Continuations. Cambridge University Press, November 1991. ISBN 0-521-41695-7.
2. Martin Bravenboer and Yannis Smaragdakis. Strictly declarative specification of sophisticated points-to analyses. In OOPSLA'09: 24th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, 2009.
3. Luca Cardelli. Compiling a functional language. In LISP and Functional Programming, pages 208--217, 1984.
4. Patrick Cousot and Radhia Cousot. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In Conference Record of the Fourth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 238--252. ACM Press, 1977.
5. Patrick Cousot and Radhia Cousot. Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In POPL'79: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 269--282. ACM Press, 1979.
6. Jörgen Gustavsson and Josef Svenningsson. Constraint abstractions. In PADO'01: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Programs as Data Objects, pages 63--83. Springer-Verlag, 2001. ISBN 3-540-42068-1.
7. Atsushi Igarashi, Benjamin C. Pierce, and Philip Wadler. Featherweight Java: a minimal core calculus for Java and GJ. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 23 (3): 396--450, 2001. ISSN 0164-0925.
8. Suresh Jagannathan and Stephen Weeks. A unified treatment of flow analysis in higher-order languages. In POPL'95: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 393--407. ACM, 1995. ISBN 0-89791-692-1.
9. Ondřej Lhoták. Program Analysis using Binary Decision Diagrams. PhD thesis, McGill University, January 2006.
10. Ondřej Lhoták and Laurie Hendren. Evaluating the benefits of context-sensitive points-to analysis using a BDD-based implementation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 18 (1): 1--53, 2008. ISSN 1049-331X.
11. Jan Midtgaard. Control-flow analysis of functional programs. Technical Report BRICS RS-07-18, DAIMI, Department of Computer Science, University of Aarhus, December 2007. To appear in revised form in ACM Computing Surveys.
12. Matthew Might and Olin Shivers. Environment analysis via Δ-CFA. In POPL'06: Conference record of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 127--140. ACM, 2006\natexlaba. ISBN 1-59593-027-2.
13. Matthew Might and Olin Shivers. Improving flow analyses via Γ-CFA: Abstract garbage collection and counting. In ICFP'06: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, pages 13--25. ACM, 2006. ISBN 1-59593-309-3.
14. Christian Mossin. Flow Analysis of Typed Higher-Order Programs. PhD thesis, DIKU, University of Copenhagen, January 1997.
15. Jakob Rehof and Manuel Fähndrich. Type-base flow analysis: from polymorphic subtyping to CFL-reachability. In POPL'01: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 54--66. ACM, 2001. ISBN 1-58113-336-7.
16. Olin Shivers. Higher-order control-flow analysis in retrospect: lessons learned, lessons abandoned. In Kathryn S. McKinley, editor, Best of PLDI 1988, volume 39, pages 257--269. ACM, 2004.
17. Olin G. Shivers. Control-Flow Analysis of Higher-Order Languages. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991.
18. David Van Horn and Harry G. Mairson. Relating complexity and precision in control flow analysis. In ICFP'07: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, pages 85--96. ACM, 2007. ISBN 9781-59593-815-2.
19. David Van Horn and Harry G. Mairson. Deciding k-CFA is complete for EXPTIME. In ICFP'08: Proceeding of the 13th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, pages 275--282. ACM, 2008. ISBN 9781-595-9391-9-7.

Index Terms

• Theory of computation

  • Semantics and reasoning

    • Program reasoning

      • Program analysis

    • Program semantics