|Abstract Interpretation vs DFA in Clang and GCC email@example.com (Jack Smith) (2011-01-10)|
|Re: Abstract Interpretation vs DFA in Clang and GCC firstname.lastname@example.org (2011-01-17)|
|Re: Abstract Interpretation vs DFA in Clang and GCC email@example.com (Jack Smith) (2011-02-09)|
|Re: Abstract Interpretation vs DFA in Clang and GCC firstname.lastname@example.org (2011-02-15)|
|From:||email@example.com (Torben Ęgidius Mogensen)|
|Date:||Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:47:16 +0100|
|Organization:||SunSITE.dk - Supporting Open source|
|References:||11-01-034 11-01-069 11-02-010|
|Posted-Date:||17 Feb 2011 01:28:48 EST|
Jack Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 17 Gen, 12:14, torb...@diku.dk (Torben Fgidius Mogensen) wrote:
>> 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.
> 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?
Liveness of a variable is not a property of the possible values of the
variable, so an abstract interpretation that abstract sets of values can
not directly express liveness.
A continuation is a functional representation of the future computation
from the present point until termination. Since liveness is a property
of the future computation, you can express liveness as an abstraction
over the set of possible continuations.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.