|Abstract Interpretation Query firstname.lastname@example.org (Ashok Sreenivas) (1992-09-04)|
|Re: Abstract Interpretation Query email@example.com (1992-09-05)|
|Re: Abstract Interpretation Query firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-09-06)|
|Re: Abstract Interpretation Query email@example.com (1992-09-06)|
|Re: Abstract Interpretation Query firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-09-06)|
|re: Abstract Interpretation Query email@example.com (P.T. Breuer) (1992-09-14)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Masticola)|
|Organization:||Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.|
|Date:||Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:22:09 GMT|
email@example.com (Vugranam Chakravarthy Sreedhar) writes:
>AI, although nice, is expensive in terms of time and space. I doubt if the
>concept is being used in any production compilers.
I don't believe that this generalization holds. As I understand it,
abstract interpretation (please forgive me if I don't use the prejudicial
term "AI" :-) is a theoretical framework for connecting a program to an
abstraction of that program, or for generating the abstraction given some
particular information you'd like to estimate. The abstraction is
supposed to have properties that make it nice for data flow analysis
(monotonic edge functions, etc.)
Standard problems like reaching definitions can be cast in an abstract
interpretation framework, and it costs nothing in terms of analysis time
to do so.
If anyone knows differently, please jump in...
- Steve Masticola (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.