20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

72
Introduction to Compilers Ben Livshits Based in part of Stanford class slides from http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/

description

 

Transcript of 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

Page 1: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

Introduction to Compilers

Ben Livshits

Based in part of Stanford class slides from http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/dragon/

w06/w06.html

Page 2: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

Organization• Really basic stuff• Flow Graphs• Constant Folding• Global Common Subexpressions• Induction Variables/Reduction in Strength

• Data-flow analysis• Proving Little Theorems• Data-Flow Equations• Major Examples

• Pointer analysis

Page 3: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

Compiler Organization

Page 4: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

6

Really Basic Stuff

• Flow Graphs• Constant Folding• Global Common Subexpressions• Induction Variables/Reduction in Strength

Page 5: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

7

Dawn of Code Optimization

A never-published Stanford technical report by Fran Allen in 1968

Flow graphs of intermediate code

Key things worth doing

Page 6: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

8

Intermediate Code

for (i=0; i<n; i++) A[i] = 1; Intermediate code exposes

optimizable constructs we cannot see at source-code level.

Make flow explicit by breaking into basic blocks = sequences of steps with entry at beginning, exit at end.

Page 7: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

9

Basic Blocks

i = 0

if i>=n goto …

t1 = 8*i A[t1] = 1i = i+1

for (i=0; i<n; i++) A[i] = 1;

Page 8: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

10

Induction Variables

x is an induction variable in a loop if it takes on a linear sequence of values each time through the loop.

Common case: loop index like i and computed array index like t1.

Eliminate “superfluous” induction variables.

Replace multiplication by addition (reduction in strength ).

Page 9: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

11

Example

i = 0

if i>=n goto …

t1 = 8*i A[t1] = 1i = i+1

t1 = 0 n1 = 8*n

if t1>=n1 goto …

A[t1] = 1 t1 = t1+8

Page 10: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

12

Loop-Invariant Code Motion

Sometimes, a computation is done each time around a loop.

Move it before the loop to save n-1 computations. Be careful: could n=0? I.e., the loop

is typically executed 0 times.

Page 11: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

13

Example

i = 0

if i>=n goto …

t1 = y+z x = x+t1 i = i+1

i = 0 t1 = y+z

if i>=n goto …

x = x+t1i = i+1

Page 12: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

14

Constant Folding

Sometimes a variable has a known constant value at a point.

If so, replacing the variable by the constant simplifies and speeds-up the code.

Easy within a basic block; harder across blocks.

Page 13: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

15

Example

i = 0 n = 100

if i>=n goto …

t1 = 8*i A[t1] = 1i = i+1

t1 = 0

if t1>=800 goto …

A[t1] = 1 t1 = t1+8

Page 14: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

16

Global Common Subexpressions

Suppose block B has a computation of x+y.

Suppose we are sure that when we reach this computation, we are sure to have:

1. Computed x+y, and2. Not subsequently reassigned x or y.

Then we can hold the value of x+y and use it in B.

Page 15: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

17

Example

a = x+y

b = x+y

c = x+y

t = x+ya = t

t = x+yb = t

c = t

Page 16: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

18

Example --- Even Better

t = x+ya = t

b = t

c = t

t = x+ya = t

t = x+yb = t

c = t

t = x+yb = t

Page 17: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

19

Data-Flow Analysis

• Proving Little Theorems• Data-Flow Equations• Major Examples

Page 18: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

20

An Obvious Theorem

boolean x = true;while (x) { . . . // no change to x} Doesn’t terminate. Proof: only assignment to x is at

top, so x is always true.

Page 19: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

21

As a Flow Graph

x = true

if x == true

“body”

Page 20: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

22

Formulation: Reaching Definitions

Each place some variable x is assigned is a definition.

Ask: for this use of x, where could x last have been defined.

In our example: only at x=true.

Page 21: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

23

Example: Reaching Definitions

d1: x = true

if x == true

d2: a = 10

d2

d1

d1d2

d1

Page 22: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

24

Clincher

Since at x == true, d1 is the only definition of x that reaches, it must be that x is true at that point.

The conditional is not really a conditional and can be replaced by a branch.

Page 23: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

25

Not Always That Easy

int i = 2; int j = 3;while (i != j) { if (i < j) i += 2; else j += 2;} We’ll develop techniques for this

problem, but later …

Page 24: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

26

The Flow Graphd1: i = 2d2: j = 3

if i != j

if i < j

d4: j = j+2d3: i = i+2

d1, d2, d3, d4

d1

d3 d4

d2

d2, d3, d4

d1, d3, d4d1, d2, d3, d4

d1, d2, d3, d4

Page 25: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

27

DFA Is Sometimes Insufficient

In this example, i can be defined in two places, and j in two places.

No obvious way to discover that i!=j is always true.

But OK, because reaching definitions is sufficient to catch most opportunities for constant folding (replacement of a variable by its only possible value).

Page 26: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

28

Be Conservative!

(Code optimization only) It’s OK to discover a subset of the

opportunities to make some code-improving transformation.

It’s not OK to think you have an opportunity that you don’t really have.

Page 27: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

29

Example: Be Conservative

boolean x = true;while (x) { . . . *p = false; . . .} Is it possible that p points to x?

Page 28: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

30

As a Flow Graph

d1: x = true

if x == true

d2: *p = false

d1

d2

Anotherdef of x

Page 29: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

31

Possible Resolution

Just as data-flow analysis of “reaching definitions” can tell what definitions of x might reach a point, another DFA can eliminate cases where p definitely does not point to x.

Example: the only definition of p is p = &y and there is no possibility that y is an alias of x.

Page 30: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

32

Reaching Definitions Formalized

A definition d of a variable x is said to reach a point p in a flow graph if:

1. Every path from the entry of the flow graph to p has d on the path, and

2. After the last occurrence of d there is no possibility that x is redefined.

Page 31: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

33

Data-Flow Equations --- (1)

A basic block can generate a definition.

A basic block can either1. Kill a definition of x if it surely

redefines x.2. Transmit a definition if it may not

redefine the same variable(s) as that definition.

Page 32: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

34

Data-Flow Equations --- (2)

Variables:1. IN(B) = set of definitions reaching

the beginning of block B.2. OUT(B) = set of definitions reaching

the end of B.

Page 33: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

35

Data-Flow Equations --- (3)

Two kinds of equations:1. Confluence equations : IN(B) in

terms of outs of predecessors of B.2. Transfer equations : OUT(B) in terms

of of IN(B) and what goes on in block B.

Page 34: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

36

Confluence Equations

IN(B) = ∪predecessors P of B OUT(P)

P2

B

P1

{d1, d2, d3}

{d2, d3}{d1, d2}

Page 35: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

37

Transfer Equations

Generate a definition in the block if its variable is not definitely rewritten later in the basic block.

Kill a definition if its variable is definitely rewritten in the block.

An internal definition may be both killed and generated.

Page 36: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

38

Example: Gen and Kill

d1: y = 3 d2: x = y+zd3: *p = 10d4: y = 5

IN = {d2(x), d3(y), d3(z), d5(y), d6(y), d7(z)}

Kill includes {d1(x), d2(x),d3(y), d5(y), d6(y),…}

Gen = {d2(x), d3(x), d3(z),…, d4(y)}

OUT = {d2(x), d3(x), d3(z),…, d4(y), d7(z)}

Page 37: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

39

Transfer Function for a Block

For any block B:

OUT(B) = (IN(B) – Kill(B)) ∪ Gen(B)

Page 38: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

40

Iterative Solution to Equations

For an n-block flow graph, there are 2n equations in 2n unknowns.

Alas, the solution is not unique. Use iterative solution to get the

least fixed-point. Identifies any def that might reach a

point.

Page 39: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

41

Iterative Solution --- (2)

IN(entry) = ∅;for each block B do OUT(B)= ∅;while (changes occur) do for each block B do { IN(B) = ∪predecessors P of B OUT(P);

OUT(B) = (IN(B) – Kill(B)) ∪ Gen(B);

}

Page 40: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

42

Example: Reaching Definitions

d1: x = 5

if x == 10

d2: x = 15

B1

B3

B2

IN(B1) = {}

OUT(B1) = {

OUT(B2) = {

OUT(B3) = {

d1}

IN(B2) = { d1,

d1,

IN(B3) = { d1,

d2}

d2}

d2}

d2}

Page 41: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

43

Aside: Notice the Conservatism

Not only the most conservative assumption about when a def is killed or gen’d.

Also the conservative assumption that any path in the flow graph can actually be taken.

Page 42: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

44

Everything Else About Data Flow Analysis

• Flow- and Context-Sensitivity Logical Representation

• Pointer Analysis• Interprocedural Analysis

Page 43: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

45

Three Levels of Sensitivity

In DFA so far, we have cared about where in the program we are. Called flow-sensitivity.

But we didn’t care how we got there. Called context-sensitivity.

We could even care about neither. Example: where could x ever be

defined in this program?

Page 44: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

46

Flow/Context Insensitivity

Not so bad when program units are small (few assignments to any variable).

Example: Java code often consists of many small methods. Remember: you can distinguish

variables by their full name, e.g., class.method.block.identifier.

Page 45: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

47

Context Sensitivity

Can distinguish paths to a given point.

Example: If we remembered paths, we would not have the problem in the constant-propagation framework where x+y = 5 but neither x nor y is constant over all paths.

Page 46: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

48

The Example Again

x = 3y = 2

x = 2y = 3

z = x+y

Page 47: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

49

An Interprocedural Example

int id(int x) {return x;}void p() {a=2; b=id(a);…}void q() {c=3; d=id(c);…} If we distinguish p calling id from q

calling id, then we can discover b=2 and d=3.

Otherwise, we think b, d = {2, 3}.

Page 48: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

50

Context-Sensitivity --- (2)

Loops and recursive calls lead to an infinite number of contexts.

Generally used only for interprocedural analysis, so forget about loops.

Need to collapse strong components of the calling graph to a single group.

“Context” becomes the sequence of groups on the calling stack.

Page 49: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

51

Example: Calling Graph

main

p

sr

q

t Contexts:

GreenGreen, pinkGreen, yellowGreen, pink, yellow

Page 50: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

52

Comparative Complexity

Insensitive: proportional to size of program (number of variables).

Flow-Sensitive: size of program, squared (points times variables).

Context-Sensitive: worst-case exponential in program size (acyclic paths through the code).

Page 51: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

53

Logical Representation

We have used a set-theoretic formulation of DFA. IN = set of definitions, e.g.

There has been recent success with a logical formulation, involving predicates.

Example: Reach(d,x,i) = “definition d of variable x can reach point i.”

Page 52: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

54

Comparison: Sets Vs. Logic

Both have an efficiency enhancement. Sets: bit vectors and boolean ops. Logic: BDD’s, incremental evaluation.

Logic allows integration of different aspects of a flow problem. Think of PRE as an example. We

needed 6 stages to compute what we wanted.

Page 53: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

55

Datalog --- (1)

Atom = Reach(d,x,i)

Literal = Atom or NOT Atom

Rule = Atom :- Literal & … & Literal

Predicate

Arguments:variables or constants

The body :For each assignment of valuesto variables that makes all thesetrue …

Make thisatom true(the head ).

Page 54: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

56

Example: Datalog Rules

Reach(d,x,j) :- Reach(d,x,i) &StatementAt(i,s) &NOT Assign(s,x) &Follows(i,j)

Reach(s,x,j) :- StatementAt(i,s) &Assign(s,x) &Follows(i,j)

Page 55: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

57

Datalog --- (2)

Intuition: subgoals in the body are combined by “and” (strictly speaking: “join”).

Intuition: Multiple rules for a predicate (head) are combined by “or.”

Page 56: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

58

Datalog --- (3)

Predicates can be implemented by relations (as in a database).

Each tuple, or assignment of values to the arguments, also represents a propositional (boolean) variable.

Page 57: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

59

Iterative Algorithm for Datalog

Start with the EDB predicates = “whatever the code dictates,” and with all IDB predicates empty.

Repeatedly examine the bodies of the rules, and see what new IDB facts can be discovered from the EDB and existing IDB facts.

Page 58: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

60

Example: Seminaive

Path(x,y) :- Arc(x,y)Path(x,y) :- Path(x,z) & Path(z,y)NewPath(x,y) = Arc(x,y); Path(x,y) = ∅;while (NewPath != ∅) do {NewPath(x,y) = {(x,y) | NewPath(x,z)

&& Path(z,y) || Path(x,z) &&NewPath(z,y)} – Path(x,y);

Path(x,y) = Path(x,y) ∪ NewPath(x,y);}

Page 59: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

Pointer analysis

61

Page 60: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

62

New Topic: Pointer Analysis

We shall consider Andersen’s formulation of Java object references.

Flow/context insensitive analysis. Cast of characters:

1. Local variables, which point to:2. Heap objects, which may have fields

that are references to other heap objects.

Page 61: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

63

Representing Heap Objects

A heap object is named by the statement in which it is created.

Note many run-time objects may have the same name.

Example: h: T v = new T; says variable v can point to (one of) the heap object(s) created by statement h.

v h

Page 62: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

64

Other Relevant Statements

v.f = w makes the f field of the heap object h pointed to by v point to what variable w points to.

v

h g

w

if f

Page 63: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

65

Other Statements --- (2)

v = w.f makes v point to what the f field of the heap object h pointed to by w points to.

v

hg

wi

f

Page 64: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

66

Other Statements --- (3)

v = w makes v point to whatever w points to. Interprocedural Analysis : Also models

copying an actual parameter to the corresponding formal or return value to a variable.

v

h

w

Page 65: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

67

Datalog Rules

1. Pts(V,H) :- “H: V = new T”2. Pts(V,H) :- “V=W” & Pts(W,H)3. Pts(V,H) :- “V=W.F” & Pts(W,G) &

Hpts(G,F,H)4. Hpts(H,F,G) :- “V.F=W” & Pts(V,H)

& Pts(W,G)

Page 66: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

68

ExampleT p(T x) {h: T a = new T;

a.f = x;return a;

}void main() {g: T b = new T;

b = p(b);b = b.f;

}

Page 67: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

69

Apply Rules Recursively --- Round 1

T p(T x) {h: T a = new T;a.f = x; return a;}

void main() {g: T b = new T;b = p(b); b = b.f;}

Pts(a,h)

Pts(b,g)

Page 68: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

70

Apply Rules Recursively --- Round 2

T p(T x) {h: T a = new T;a.f = x; return a;}

void main() {g: T b = new T;b = p(b); b = b.f;}

Pts(a,h)

Pts(b,g)

Pts(b,h)

Pts(x,g)

Page 69: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

71

Apply Rules Recursively --- Round 3

T p(T x) {h: T a = new T;a.f = x; return a;}

void main() {g: T b = new T;b = p(b); b = b.f;}

Pts(a,h)

Pts(b,g)

Pts(x,g)

Pts(b,h)

Hpts(h,f,g)Pts(x,h)

Page 70: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

72

Apply Rules Recursively --- Round 4

T p(T x) {h: T a = new T;a.f = x; return a;}

void main() {g: T b = new T;b = p(b); b = b.f;}

Pts(a,h)

Pts(b,g)

Pts(x,g)

Pts(b,h)

Pts(x,h) Hpts(h,f,g)

Hpts(h,f,h)

Page 71: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

73

Adding Context Sensitivity

Include a component C = context. C doesn’t change within a function. Call and return can extend the

context if the called function is not mutually recursive with the caller.

Page 72: 20101017 program analysis_for_security_livshits_lecture02_compilers

74

Example of Rules: Context Sensitive

Pts(V,H,B,I+1,C) :- “B,I: V=W” & Pts(W,H,B,I,C)

Pts(X,H,B0,0,D) :- Pts(V,H,B,I,C) & “B,I: call P(…,V,…)” & “X is the corresponding actual to V in P” & “B0 is the entry of P” & “context D is C extended by P”