1 Why is Pointer Analysis Difficult
2 A Model for Pointers and References
3 Flow Insensitivity
4 The Formulation in Datalog
5 Using Type Information
6 Exercises for Section 12.4

**A Simple Pointer-Analysis Algorithm **

*1 Why is Pointer Analysis
Difficult*

*2 A Model for Pointers and
References*

*3 Flow Insensitivity*

*4 The Formulation in Datalog*

*5 Using Type Information*

*6 Exercises for Section 12.4*

In this section, we begin the discussion of a very simple
flow-insensitive pointer-alias analysis assuming that there are no procedure
calls. We shall show in subsequent sections how to handle procedures first
context insensitively, then context sensitively. Flow sensitivity adds a lot of
complexity, and is less im-portant to context sensitivity for languages like
Java where methods tend to be small.

The fundamental
question that we wish to ask in pointer-alias analysis is whether a given pair
of pointers may be aliased. One way to answer this question is to compute for
each pointer the answer to the question "what objects can this pointer
point to?" If two pointers can point to the same object, then the pointers
may be aliased.

**1. Why is
Pointer Analysis Difficult**

Pointer-alias analysis for C programs is particularly difficult,
because C pro-grams can perform arbitrary computations on pointers. In fact,
one can read in an integer and assign it to a pointer, which would render this
pointer a potential alias of all other pointer variables in the program.
Pointers in Java, known as references, are much simpler. No arithmetic is
allowed, and pointers can only point to the beginning of an object.

Pointer-alias analysis must be interprocedural. Without interprocedural
analysis, one must assume that any method called can change the contents of all
accessible pointer variables, thus rendering any intraprocedural pointer-alias
analysis ineffective.

Languages allowing indirect function calls present an additional challenge
for pointer-alias analysis. In C, one can call a function indirectly by calling
a dereferenced function pointer. We need to know what the function pointer can
point to before we can analyze the function called. And clearly, after
analyzing the function called, one may discover more functions that the
function pointer can point to, and therefore the process needs to be iterated.

While most functions
are called directly in C, virtual methods in Java cause many invocations to be
indirect. Given an invocation x.m() in a Java program, there may be many
classes to which object *x* might belong and that have a method named m.
The more precise our knowledge of the actual type of *x,* the more precise
our call graph is. Ideally, we can determine at compile time the exact class of
*x* and thus know exactly which method m refers to.

Here *o* is declared to be an Object . Without analyzing what
*o* refers to, all possible methods called "length" declared for
all classes must be considered as possible targets. Knowing that *o*
points to a S t r i n g will narrow interprocedural analysis to precisely the
method declared for S t r i n g . •

It is possible to apply approximations to reduce the number of
targets. For example, statically we can determine what are all the types of
objects created, and we can limit the analysis to those. But we can be more
accurate if we can discover the call graph on the fly, based on the points-to
analysis obtained at the same time. More accurate call graphs lead not only to
more precise results but also can reduce greatly the analysis time otherwise
needed.

Points-to analysis is
complicated. It is not one of those "easy" data flow problems where
we only need to simulate the effect of going around a loop of statements once.
Rather, as we discover new targets for a pointer, all statements assigning the
contents of that pointer to another pointer need to be re-analyzed.

For simplicity, we shall focus mainly on Java. We shall start with
flow-insensitive and context-insensitive analysis, assuming for now that no
methods are called in the program. Then, we describe how we can discover the
call graph on the fly as the points-to results are computed. Finally, we
describe one way of handling context sensitivity.

**2. A Model for Pointers and References **

Let us suppose that our language has the following ways to
represent and ma-nipulate references:

1.
Certain program
variables are of type "pointer to T" or "reference to T,"
where *T* is a type. These variables are either static or live on the
run-time stack. We call them simply *variables.*

2.
There is a heap
of objects. All variables point to heap
objects, not to

other variables. These objects will be referred to as *heap objects.*

3. A heap object can
have fields, and the value of a field can be a reference to a heap object (but
not to a variable).

Java is modeled well by this structure, and we shall use Java
syntax in examples. Note that C is modeled less well, since pointer variables
can point to other pointer variables in C, and in principle, any C value can be
coerced into a pointer.

Since we are performing an insensitive analysis, we only need to
assert that a given variable *v* can point to a given heap object *h;*
we do not have to address the issue of where in the program *v* can point
to *h,* or in what contexts *v* can point to *h.* Note, however,
that variables can be named by their full name. In Java, this name can
incorporate the module, class, method, and block within a method, as well as
the variable name itself. Thus, we can distinguish many variables that have the
same identifier.

Heap objects do not have names. Approximation often is used to
name the objects, because an unbounded number of objects may be created
dynamically. One convention is to refer to objects by the statement at which
they are created. As a statement can be executed many times and create a new
object each time, an assertion like "v can point to /i" really means
"v can point to One or more of the objects created at the statement
labeled h." The goal of the analysis is to determine what each variable
and each field of each heap object can point to. We refer to this as a
points-to analysis; two pointers are aliased if their points-to sets intersect.
We describe here an *inclusion-based *analysis; that is, a statement such
as v =* ***w*** *causes variable* v *to* *point to all the objects *w*
points to, but not vice versa. While this approach may seem obvious, there are
other alternatives to how we define points-to analysis. For example, we can
define an *equivalence-based* analysis such that a statement like v = **w** would turn variables *v* and *w* into one equivalence
class, pointing to all the variables that each can point to. While this
formulation does not approximate aliases well, it provides a quick, and often
good, answer to the question of which variables point to the same kind of
objects.

3.
**Flow Insensitivity **

We start by showing a very simple example to illustrate the effect
of ignoring control flow in points-to analysis.

Example **1 2 . 2 2
:** In Fig. 12.20, three objects, *h, i,* and j, are created and
assigned to variables a, *b,* and c, respectively. Thus, surely *a*
points to *h, b*

If you
follow the statements (4) through (6), you discover that after line (4) *a *points
only to* i. *After line (5),* b *points only to* j, *and after
line (6), c points* *only to *i. •*

The above analysis is flow sensitive because we follow the control flow
and compute what each variable can point to after each statement. In other
words, in addition to considering what points-to information each statement
"generates," we also account for what points-to information each
statement "kills." For instance, the statement b = c; kills the
previous fact "6 points to f and generates the new relationship "6
points to what c points to."

A flow-insensitive analysis
ignores the control flow, which essentially assumes that every statement in the
program can be executed in any order. It computes only one global points-to map
indicating what each variable can possibly point to at any point of the program
execution. If a variable can point to two different objects after two different
statements in a program, we simply record that it can point to both objects. In
other words, in flow-insensitive analysis, an assignment does not
"kill" any points-to relations but can only "generate" more
points-to relations. To compute the flow-insensitive results, we repeatedly add
the points-to effects of each statement on the points-to relationships until no
new relations are found. Clearly, lack of flow sensitivity weakens the analysis
results greatly, but it tends to reduce the size of the representation of the
results and make the algorithm converge faster.

Example 1 2 . 2 3 : Returning to Example 12.22, lines (1) through (3)
again tell us a can point to h; b can point to i, and c can point to j. With
lines (4) and (5), a can point to both h and i, and b can point to both i and
j. With line (6), c can point to h,i, and j. This information affects line (5),
which in turn affects line (4), In the end, we are left with the useless
conclusion that anything can point to anything.

4.
**The Formulation in Datalog **

Let us now formalize a flow-insensitive pointer-alias analysis
based on the dis-cussion above. We shall ignore procedure calls for now and
concentrate on the four kinds of statements that can affect pointers:

1. *Object creation,* h: T v = new T ( ) ; This statement
creates a new heap object, and variable *v* can point to it.

2. Copy statement, v = w; Here, v and w are variables. The statement
makes v point to whatever heap object w currently points to; i.e., w is copied
into v.

3. Field store, v . f = w; The type of object that v points to must
have a field /, and this field must be of some reference type. Let v point to
heap object h, and let w point to g. This statement makes the field /, in h now
point to g. Note that the variable v is unchanged.

4. Field load, v = w . f ; Here, if is a variable pointing to some heap
object that has a field /, and / points to some heap object h. The statement
makes variable v point to h.

Note that compound field accesses in the source code such as v = w. f.
g will be broken down into two primitive field-load statements:

Let us now express the analysis formally in Datalog rules. First,
there are only two IDB predicates we need to compute:

1. *pts(V,H)* means that
variable *V* can point
to heap object *H.*

2. *hpts(H, F, G)* means that field *F* of heap object *H*
can point to heap object *G.*

The EDB relations are
constructed from the program itself. Since the location of statements in a
program is irrelevant when the analysis is flow-insensitive, we only have to
assert in the EDB the existence of statements that have certain forms. In what
follows, we shall make a convenient simplification. Instead of defining EDB
relations to hold the information garnered from the program, we shall use a
quoted statement form to suggest the EDB relation or relations that represent
the existence of such a statement. For example, "H : TV = new T" is
an EDB fact asserting that at statement H there is an assignment that makes
variable V point to a new object of type T. We as-sume that in practice, there
would be a corresponding EDB relation that would be populated with ground
atoms, one for each statement of this form in the program.

With this convention,
all we need to write the Datalog program is one rule for each of the four types
of statements. The program is shown in Fig, 12.21. Rule (1) says that variable *V*
can point to heap object *H* if statement *H* is an assignment of a
new object to *V.* Rule (2) says that if there is a copy statement V = W,
and *W* can point to *H,* then *V* can point to *H.*

Rule (3) says that if
there is a statement of the form V.F = W,W can point to G, and V can point to
H, then the F field of H can point to G. Finally, rule (4) says that if there
is a statement of the form V = W.F, W can point to G, and the F field of G can
point to H, then V can point to H. Notice that pts and hpts are mutually
recursive, but this Datalog program can be evaluated by either of the iterative
algorithms discussed in Section 12.3.4.

**5. Using Type Information **

Because Java is type
safe, variables can only point to types that are compat-ible to the declared
types. For example, assigning an object belonging to a superclass of the
declared type of a variable would raise a run-time exception. Consider the
simple example in Fig. 12.22, where 5 is a subclass of *T.* This program
will generate a run-time exception if *p* is true, because *a* cannot
be assigned an object of class *T.* Thus, statically we can conclude that
because of the type restriction, *a* can only point to *h* and not *g.*

Thus, we introduce to
our analysis three EDB predicates that reflect impor-tant type information in
the code being analyzed. We shall use the following:

1. vType(V,T) says
that variable V is declared to have type T.

2. hType(H,T) says
that heap object H is allocated with type T. The type of a created object may
not be known precisely if, for example, the object is returned by a native
method. Such types are modeled conservatively as all possible types.

3. assignable(T, S)
means that an object of type S can be assigned to a variable with the type T. This
information is generally gathered from the declaration of subtypes in the
program, but also incorporates information about the predefined classes of the
language. assignable(T:T) is always true.

We can modify the
rules from Fig. 12.21 to allow inferences only if the variable assigned gets a
heap object of an assignable type. The rules are shown in Fig. 12.23.

The first
modification is to rule (2). The last three subgoals say that we can only
conclude that V can point to H if there are types T and S that variable V and
heap object H may respectively have, such that objects of type S can be
assigned to variables that are references to type T. A similar additional
restriction has been added to rule (4). Notice that there is no additional
restriction in rule (3) because all stores must go through variables. Any type
restriction would only catch one extra case, when the base object is a null
constant.

**6. Exercises for Section 12.4 **

Exercise 1 2 . 4 . 3 : We can extend the analysis of this section
to be interproce-dural if we simulate call and return as if they were copy
operations, as in rule (2) of Fig. 12.21. That is, a call copies the actuals to
their corresponding formals, and the return copies the variable that holds the
return value to the variable that is assigned the result of the call. Consider
the program of Fig. 12.25.

a)
Perform an
insensitive analysis on this code.

b)
Some of the
inferences made in (a) are actually "bogus," in the sense that they
do not represent any event that can occur at run-time. The problem can be
traced to the multiple assignments to variable *b.* Rewrite the code of
Fig. 12.25 so that no variable is assigned more than once. Rerun the analysis
and show that each inferred *pts* and *hpts* fact can occur at run
time.

Study Material, Lecturing Notes, Assignment, Reference, Wiki description explanation, brief detail

Compilers : Principles, Techniques, & Tools : Interprocedural Analysis : A Simple Pointer-Analysis Algorithm |

**Related Topics **

Privacy Policy, Terms and Conditions, DMCA Policy and Compliant

Copyright © 2018-2024 BrainKart.com; All Rights Reserved. Developed by Therithal info, Chennai.