|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:||Jack Smith <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:31:54 -0800 (PST)|
|Posted-Date:||09 Feb 2011 09:50:48 EST|
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?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.