Type elaboration and subtype completion for Java bytecode

Knoblock, Todd B.; Rehof, Jakob

doi:10.1145/325694.325725

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We give a characterization of these complete shells in the following proposition (see Appendix for the proof). This is essentially the same result as in [16].…”

Section: Subset-of-errors Abstractionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Corollary (16). For all methods µ with instructions in I, it is res(StdV + µ ) \ res(SetV µ ) ⊆ T s .…”

Section: ( * )mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Knoblock and Rehof [16] suggest to complete the poset of types by using the Dedekind-MacNeille completion, transforming it into a lattice. We have seen in Observation 10 that (in our model) this approach is equivalent to the set based verification.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We cannot directly compare these results with ours, because the complete type elaboration generates also many data structures used later in the compilation process. Nevertheless, both the complexity calculus and the measures in [16] suggest that the poset completion is definitely not negligible. With our work, we do not need to complete the poset.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Using abstract interpretation to add type checking for interfaces in Java bytecode verification

Francesco

Lettieri

Martini

2010

Theoretical Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Java interface types support multiple inheritance. Because of this, the standard bytecode verifier ignores them, since it is not able to model the class hierarchy as a lattice. Thus, type checks on interfaces are performed at run time. We propose a verification methodology that removes the need for run-time checks. The methodology consists of: (1) an augmented verifier that is very similar to the standard one, but is also able to check for interface types in most cases; (2) for all other cases, a set of additional simpler verifiers, each one specialized for a single interface type. We obtain these verifiers in a systematic way by using abstract interpretation techniques. Finally, we describe an implementation of the methodology and evaluate it on a large set of benchmarks. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

show abstract

“…We give a characterization of these complete shells in the following proposition (see Appendix for the proof). This is essentially the same result as in [16].…”

Section: Subset-of-errors Abstractionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Corollary (16). For all methods µ with instructions in I, it is res(StdV + µ ) \ res(SetV µ ) ⊆ T s .…”

Section: ( * )mentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using abstract interpretation to add type checking for interfaces in Java bytecode verification

Francesco

Lettieri

Martini

2010

Theoretical Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another example is that the Java type system allows the use of subtyping in some places but not in others. One of the insights from previous work on aligning flow analysis and type systems [13,17,[23][24][25] is that subset constraints correspond to subtyping, while equality constraints correspond to "no nontrivial subtyping"; that is, types are related only if they are equal. The consequence is that a flow analyses must satisfy subset constraints in some places and equality constraints in others (see [1,22] for examples of subset constraints and [7] for an example of equality constraints and another example of the mixed use of subset and equality constraints).…”

Section: Our Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Type-safe method inlining

Glew

Palsberg²

2004

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a typed language such as Java, inlining of virtual methods does not always preserve typability. The best known solution to this problem is to insert type casts, which may hurt performance. This paper presents a solution that never hurts performance. The solution is based on a transformation that modifies static type annotations and changes some virtual calls into static calls, which can then be safely inlined. The transformation is parametrised by a flow analysis, and for any analysis that satisfies certain conditions, the transformation is correct and idempotent. The paper presents the transformation, the conditions on the flow analysis, and proves the correctness properties in the context of a variant of Featherweight Java.

show abstract

Weighted Pseudo-distances for Categorization in Semantic Hierarchies

Joslyn

Bruno

2005

Conceptual Structures: Common Semantics for Sharing Knowledge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Type elaboration and subtype completion for Java bytecode

Cited by 16 publications

References 16 publications

Using abstract interpretation to add type checking for interfaces in Java bytecode verification

Using abstract interpretation to add type checking for interfaces in Java bytecode verification

Type-safe method inlining

Weighted Pseudo-distances for Categorization in Semantic Hierarchies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About