Re: Side-effects

[Helge Jensen <jensen@slog.dk>]

Ondrej Lhotak wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:03:11AM +0200, Helge Jensen wrote:

> > For my BTA, I will need a side-effects analysis for methods.

> > It does not return points-to sets as it's output, but rather RWSets, 
> > which are basically Sets of SootFields, which I cannot (possibly because 
> > of my limited knowledge of the points-to analysis and soot) relate to 
> > points-to-sets.

> RWSets are not just sets of SootFields. They are sets of pairs
> (SootField, PointsToSet), indicating that the given SootField of all
> objects in PointsToSet may be read/written.

Oh, didn't see that in the codem, thanks.

> > It also seems to be monovariant in the call-site functions arguments, 
> > "lub'ing" the side-effects of all invocations of the function.
> Yes, this is true, and I understand that it may make the analysis
> unsuitable for your application.

Ufortunatly yes. After some conversation with my thesis supervisor, we 
decided to postpone looking at the side-effects analysis. We will be 
trying to use the points-to analysis directly to decide binding-time for 
 "locations".

Im not exacly sure how much information the points-to analysis yields, 
as is. But if we need to expand the information known (for example by 
having functions-calls variadric in the points-to sets of their 
arguments), we could:

  1. extend the points-to analysis
  2. transform the program before/during analysis

and the BTA would derive it's precision from the PTA.

--
Helge