Lab for Automated Reasoning and Analysis LARA

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
sav07_lecture_7 [2009/03/24 23:18]
vkuncak
sav07_lecture_7 [2009/04/08 01:26] (current)
vkuncak
Line 120: Line 120:
  
 The fact that we only used conjunctions is our analysis makes it **path-insensitive**. Intuitively,​ since we're only taking conjunctions,​ our normalization is too conservative and we will not be able to retain properties associated to certain paths. **Path-sensitivity** is often used as a measure of the precision of an analysis. The fact that we only used conjunctions is our analysis makes it **path-insensitive**. Intuitively,​ since we're only taking conjunctions,​ our normalization is too conservative and we will not be able to retain properties associated to certain paths. **Path-sensitivity** is often used as a measure of the precision of an analysis.
 +
  
  
Line 133: Line 134:
 $A^+ = \{ \bigvee (P_{i1} \wedge ... \wedge P_{in}) | P_{ij} \in \{Q_1, ..., Q_n\}) \}$ $A^+ = \{ \bigvee (P_{i1} \wedge ... \wedge P_{in}) | P_{ij} \in \{Q_1, ..., Q_n\}) \}$
  
-The use of disjunctions allows us to write predicates about attributes for some particular paths. For this reason, this is called **regional** (or **dependent**) **attribute analysis**.+The use of disjunctions allows us to write predicates about attributes for some particular paths. For this reason, this is called **relational** (or **dependent**) **attribute analysis**.
  
 If we go back to our previous example, we could end up with a predicate at the final point which would look (at least partially) somehow like: If we go back to our previous example, we could end up with a predicate at the final point which would look (at least partially) somehow like:
 
sav07_lecture_7.txt · Last modified: 2009/04/08 01:26 by vkuncak
 
© EPFL 2018 - Legal notice