Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compilers > #972 > unrolled thread

Re: Abstract Interpretation vs DFA in Clang and GCC

Back to article view | Back to comp.compilers

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Abstract Interpretation vs DFA in Clang and GCC Jack Smith <ilikequoting@katamail.com> - 2011-02-09 00:31 -0800

#972 — Re: Abstract Interpretation vs DFA in Clang and GCC

On 17 Gen, 12:14, torb...@diku.dk (Torben Fgidius Mogensen) wrote:
> Jack Smith <ilikequot...@katamail.com> writes:
> > since someone says that nowadays it's better abstract interpretation
> > than DFA can anyone tell me what's the difference among them?
>
> Abstract interpretation (AI) has a strong tie to the semantics of the
> language: Each value in AI corresponds to a set of values in the
> semantics, which makes it relatively easy to prove the correctness of
> an anlysis.  Values in data-flow analysis (DFA) do not have such a
> clear relation to the semantics, so they are more difficult to prove
> correct.  On the other hand, DFA can do analyses that are difficult to
> express as AI, such as liveness.  To do liveness analysis with AI you
> need a continuation-passing semantics.
thank you for your reply,

while studying for my exam i  figured out what you wanted to say :)
we could say also that abstract interpretation can do many things,
among these there's DFA too, could we?
for example, the polyhedra library (PPL) can do a value-range analysis
for imperative programs that is a sort of DFA. right?

could you go more in deep about liveness analysis?
why would i need a continuation-passing style semantic? have you got
some paper about that?

thank you

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.compilers

csiph-web