whats wrong with analysizing pointers this way ?

"dz" <drizzle76@gmail.com>
19 Feb 2006 02:01:05 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
whats wrong with analysizing pointers this way ? drizzle76@gmail.com (dz) (2006-02-19)
Re: whats wrong with analysizing pointers this way ? DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-02-20)
Re: whats wrong with analysizing pointers this way ? jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?=) (2006-02-24)
Re: whats wrong with analysizing pointers this way ? shreyas76@gmail.com (shrey) (2006-02-24)
Re: whats wrong with analysizing pointers this way ? david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net (Dave Thompson) (2006-03-05)
Re: whats wrong with analysizing pointers this way ? jvorbrueggen@mediasec.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?=) (2006-03-11)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "dz" <drizzle76@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 19 Feb 2006 02:01:05 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Keywords: analysis, question

Hi,
          Consider the following pointer analysis assuming the complete
availability of the source code.


                  I consider pointers pointing to a universe of variables whose
address is taken, that includes variables that has been passed as
parameters to functions, parameters whose address has been taken inside
that function. For functions, that have calls to malloc the universe
includes an additional generic element "heap"


              While I understand, u might be able to do better. But the bigger
question is, that is this correct and feasible to do. It seems trivial
in terms of feasibility unless the assumption that I made is not really
right. The reason I am motivated to ask this is based on the current
gcc's alias analysis, which reports a pointer as pointing to {ANYTHING}
once it is passed as a parameter. The gcc guys cannot be wrong, so that
brings me back to...whats wrong with the pointer analysis ?


thanks
dz


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.