Jeffrey S. Foster and Manuel Fahndrich and Alexander Aiken

EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley

Technical Report No. UCB/CSD-00-1097

, 2000

http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2000/CSD-00-1097.pdf

We carry out an experimental analysis for two of the design dimensions of flow-insensitive points-to analysis for C: polymorphic versus monomorphic and equality-based versus inclusion-based. Holding other analysis parameters fixed, we measure the precision of the four design points on a suite of benchmarks of up to 90,000 abstract syntax tree nodes. Our experiments show that the benefit of polymorphism varies significantly with the underlying monomorphic analysis. For our equality-based analysis, adding polymorphism greatly increases precision, while for our inclusion-based analysis, adding polymorphism hardly makes any difference. We also gain some insight into the nature of polymorphism in points-to analysis of C. In particular, we find considerable polymorphism available in function parameters, but little or no polymorphism in function results, and we show how this observation explains our results.

---

BibTeX citation:

@techreport{Foster:CSD-00-1097,
    Author= {Foster, Jeffrey S. and Fahndrich, Manuel and Aiken, Alexander},
    Title= {Polymorphic versus Monomorphic Flow-insensitive Points-to Analysis for C (Extended Version)},
    Year= {2000},
    Month= {Apr},
    Url= {http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2000/5230.html},
    Number= {UCB/CSD-00-1097},
    Abstract= {We carry out an experimental analysis for two of the design dimensions of flow-insensitive points-to analysis for C: polymorphic versus monomorphic and equality-based versus inclusion-based. Holding other analysis parameters fixed, we measure the precision of the four design points on a suite of benchmarks of up to 90,000 abstract syntax tree nodes. Our experiments show that the benefit of polymorphism varies significantly with the underlying monomorphic analysis. For our equality-based analysis, adding polymorphism greatly increases precision, while for our inclusion-based analysis, adding polymorphism hardly makes any difference. We also gain some insight into the nature of polymorphism in points-to analysis of C. In particular, we find considerable polymorphism available in function parameters, but little or no polymorphism in function results, and we show how this observation explains our results.},
}

EndNote citation:

%0 Report
%A Foster, Jeffrey S. 
%A Fahndrich, Manuel 
%A Aiken, Alexander 
%T Polymorphic versus Monomorphic Flow-insensitive Points-to Analysis for C (Extended Version)
%I EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley
%D 2000
%@ UCB/CSD-00-1097
%U http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2000/5230.html
%F Foster:CSD-00-1097