On the relative completeness of bytecode analysis versus source code analysis

39Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We discuss the challenges faced by bytecode analyzers designed for code verification compared to similar analyzers for source code. While a bytecode-level analysis brings many simplifications, e.g., fewer cases, independence from source syntax, name resolution, etc., it also introduces precision loss that must be recovered either via preprocessing, more precise abstract domains, more precise transfer functions, or a combination thereof. The paper studies the relative completeness of a static analysis for bytecode compared to the analysis of the program source. We illustrate it through examples originating from the design and the implementation of Clousot, a generic static analyzer based on Abstract Interpretation for the analysis of MSIL. © 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

References Powered by Scopus

Abstract interpretation: "A" unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints

4605Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program

1197Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Boogie: A modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs

561Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Static contract checking with abstract interpretation

96Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A termination analyzer for Java bytecode based on path-length

93Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Embedded contract languages

79Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Logozzo, F., & Fähndrich, M. (2008). On the relative completeness of bytecode analysis versus source code analysis. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 4959 LNCS, pp. 197–212). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78791-4_14

Readers over time

‘09‘10‘11‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘2401234

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 16

84%

Researcher 3

16%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 19

83%

Engineering 2

9%

Medicine and Dentistry 1

4%

Psychology 1

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0