1 / 45

Survey of program slicing techniques

Survey of program slicing techniques. Presenter’s Name: Keyur Malaviya. Purpose of this paper. It’s a survey that presents an overview of program slicing Various general approaches used to compute slices

cyrah
Download Presentation

Survey of program slicing techniques

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Survey of program slicing techniques Presenter’s Name: Keyur Malaviya

  2. Purpose of this paper • It’s a survey that presents an overview of program slicing • Various general approaches used to compute slices • Specific techniques used to address procedures, unstructured control flow, composite data types and pointers, and concurrency. • Static and dynamic slicing methods for each of these features • Comparison and classification in terms of their accuracy and efficiency

  3. Topics Covered • Definitions • Static slicing vs Dynamic slicing • Basic slicing algorithm for single procedure and multiprocedure • Weiser Algorithm • Hausler • Bergeretti and Carr´e • Horwitz, Reps, and Binkley Algo • Applications

  4. Definitions (Basics) • Slicing? • Slicing Criteria? • Static and Dynamic slicing? • Program slicing? • Program dependence graph (PDG) or Control flow graph (CFG) or System dependency grapy (SDG) (1) read(n); (2) i := 1; (3) sum := 0; (4) product := 1; (5) while i <= n do begin (6) sum := sum + i; (7) product := product * i; (8) i := i + 1 end; (9) write(sum); (10) write(product)

  5. Definitions (CFG \ PDG) PDG: Directed graph; Vertices = statements and control predicates Edges = data and control dependences CFG

  6. Definitions • Program slice: consists of the parts of a program that affect the values computed at some point of interest. • Slicing criterion: is this point of interest specified by a pair (program point, set of variables) • Original concept by Weiser: Its a mental abstractions that people make when they are debugging a program • Static slicing: Computed without making assumptions regarding a program’s input • Dynamic slicing: Relies on some specific test case

  7. Definitions (criteria and slicing ) Slice of this program w.r.t criterion (10, product) (1) read(n); (2) i := 1; (3) sum := 0; (4) product := 1; (5) while i <= n do begin (6) sum := sum + i; (7) product := product * i; (8) i := i + 1 end; (9) write(sum); (10) write(product) (1) read(n); (2) i := 1; (3) sum := 0; (4) product := 1; (5) while i <= n do begin (6) sum := sum + i; (7) product := product * i; (8) i := i + 1 end; (9) write(sum); (10) write(product) (1) read(n); (2) i := 1; (3) (4) product := 1; (5) while i <= n do begin (6) (7) product := product * i; (8) i := i + 1 end; (9) (10) write(product) • Single-procedure programs(PDG); Shading in the PDG shown before  vertices in the slice w.r.t. write(product)

  8. Static slicing vs Dynamic slicing • Dynamic Slicing: First introduced by Korel and Laski Non-interactive variation of Balzer’s flowback analysis • Flowback analysis: Interactively traverse a graph (data and control dependences between statements in the program); For e.g.: S(V) depends on T(V), S and T are statements; T  S is in CFG, then trace back from vertex for S to vertex for T • Only the dependences that occur in a specific execution of the program are taken into account • Dynamic slicing criterion is a triple (input, occurrence of a statement, variable) – it specifies the input, and distinguishes between different occurrences of a statement in the execution history • Dynamic slicing assumes fixed input for a program • Static slicing does not make assumptions regarding the input.

  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 read(n); i := 1; while (i <= n) do begin if (i mod 2 = 0) then x := 17 else x := 18; i := i + 1 end; write(x) Static slicing vs Dynamic slicingcriterion SS: (8, x) and DS: (n=2, 81, x) Example program: Static slice w.r.t. criterion (8, x) Dynamic slice w.r.t. criterion (n=2, 81, x) read(n); i := 1; while (i <= n) do begin if (i mod 2 = 0) then x := 17 else x := 18; i := i + 1 end; write(x) read(n); i := 1; while (i <= n) do begin if (i mod 2 = 0) then x := 17 else ; i := i + 1 end; write(x)

  10. Slicing Algorithm Approaches • Achieved through one of three algorithmic approaches: 1) data-flow equations 2) system dependency graph 3) parallel algorithm • All based on control and data dependencies and defined in terms of a graph representation of a program (as seen before)

  11. Approaches: • Statements and control predicates are gathered by way of a backward traversal of the program’s control flow graph (CFG) or PDG, starting at the slicing criterion • Weiser’s approach: compute slices from consecutive sets of transitively relevant statements ( data flow and control flow dependences ) • Ottenstein approach: in terms of a reachability problem in a PDG. Slicing criterion  A vertex in the PDG; A Slice corresponds to all PDG vertices from which the vertex under consideration can be reached • Other approaches: Based on modified and extended versions of PDGs

  12. Weiser Algorithm (single procedure) • Two levels of iteration: 1. Transitive data dependences in the presence of loops in the program 2. Control dependences, initiating the inclusion of control predicates for which each, step 1 is repeated to include the statements it is dependent upon • Determine directly relevant variables and then indirectly relevant variables; From these compute the sets of relevant statements

  13. Parameters and equations • Defined and Referenced Variables • DEF(i) and REF(i) • Say at node ‘i’ consider a statement a = b + c • Then DEF(i) = {a} and REF(i) = {b, c} • Directly Relevant Variable • : set of directly relevant variables, where slice criterion = (V, n) • Set DRV (i) Set DRV (all nodesj) that have a direct edge to i,

  14. Parameters and equations • Directly Relevant Statements • : set of all nodes i that define a variable vthat is relevant at the successor node of I • Indirectly Relevant Variables • referenced variables in control predicate are indirectly relevant when at least oneof the statements in its body is relevant, denoted: • b is known as a range of influence INFL (b),

  15. Example program

  16. Applying the Weiser algo Slicing criterion (10, product) & our example program R0 {product}

  17. Applying the Weiser algo Slicing criterion (10, product) & our example program R0 {product} {product} {product}

  18. Applying the Weiser algo Slicing criterion (10, product) & our example program R0 {product, i} {product} {product} {product}

  19. Applying the Weiser algo Slicing criterion (10, product) & our example program Slicing criterion (5, {i, n}) & repeat the same procedure 0 {n} {i, n} {i, n} {product, i, n} {product, i, n} {product, i, n} {product, i, n} {product} {product}

  20. Applying the Weiser algo Slicing criterion (10, product) & our example program ? ? ?

  21. Equations for related statements:

  22. Hausler (functional style) • For each type of statement, have a function and • & express how a statement transforms the set of relevant variables & relevant statements reply. • Functions for a while statement are obtained by transforming it into an infinite sequence of if statements

  23.  iff the value of v on entry to S potentially affects the value computed for e  iff the value computed for e potentially affects the value of v on exit from S,  iff the value of v on entry to S may affect the value of v on exit from S. Information-flow relations(Bergeretti and Carr´e) Statement S: variable v and an expression e ( e can be control predicate or right-hand side of assignment) • We define relations: • They possess following properties:

  24. Information-flow relations(Bergeretti and Carr´e) • How to get the slice with respect to the final value of v ? • The set of all expressions e for which can be used to construct “partial statements” replace all statements in S that do not contain expressions in by empty statements. • Relations are computed in a syntax-directed, bottom-up • For S, v := e

  25. Information-flow relations(Bergeretti and Carr´e) • Set of expressions that potentially affect the value of product at the end of the program are {1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8} • Partial statement is obtained • by omitting all statements from the program that do not contain expressions in this set, i.e., both assignments to sum and both write statements • The slice is same as Weiser’s algorithm

  26. Dependence graph based approaches (PDG) and Procedures • PDG variant of Ottenstein shows considerably more detail than that by Horwitz, Reps, and Binkley • Procedures • Call-return structure of interprocedural execution paths • Single pass considers infeasible execution paths – a problem called “calling-context” • Will see two approaches: • Weiser’s approach (CFG) • Horwitz, Reps, and Binkley (SDG)

  27. Dependence graph based approaches (PDG) and Procedures • Weiser’s approach for interprocedural static slicing: • Interprocedural summary information is computed, using previously developed techniques  P, set MOD(P) of variables = modified by P, and set USE(P) of variables = used by P • Intraprocedural slicing algorithm: Treat ‘P()’ as a conditional assignment statement ‘if SomePredicate then MOD(P) := USE(P)’ (external procedures, source-code is unavailable?)

  28. (i) procedures Q called by P: consist of all pairs • (ii) procedures R that call P: consist of all pairs Weiser’s approach • Actual inter-procedural slicing algo that generates new slicing criteria iteratively w.r.t slices computed in step (2): • (i) procedures Q called by P • (i) procedures Q called by P: • (ii) procedures R that call P • (ii) procedures R that call P:

  29. Weiser’s Algo • To formalize the generation of new criteria: • UP(S) : Map (a set S of slicing criteria in a P) to (a set of criteria in procedures that call P) • DOWN(S): Map (a set S of slicing criteria in a P) to (a set of criteria in procedures called by P) • Set of all criteria: transitive and reflexive closure of the UP and DOWN relations (UP U DOWN)* • UP and DOWN sets: Requires sets of relevant variables to be known at all call sites  computation of these sets is done by slicing these procedures • When iteration stops? • When no new criteria are generated

  30. Main issue: procedure P(y1, y2, … , yn); begin write(y1); write(y2); … (M) write(yn) end • program Main; • … • while ( ) do • P(x1, x2, , xn); • z := x1; • x1 := x2; • x2 := x3; • xn1 := xn • end; • (L) write(z) • end Procedure P is sliced ‘n’ times by Weiser’s algorithm for criterion (L, {z}).

  31. Weiser’s Algo • Lprogram point at S = write(z) • M  program point at last statement in P • Slice w.r.t. criterion (L, { z })? • ‘n’ iterations of the body of the while loop • During the ith iteration, variables x1, …, xi will be relevant at call site • DOWN(Main): criterion (M, { y1, …, yi }) gets included • Issue is: ??? Procedure P will be sliced n times

  32. What was the problem? • Weiser’s algorithm does not take into account which output parameters are dependent on which input parameters is a source of imprecision • Lets see another examples that shows this problem:

  33. What was the problem? program Example; begin ; b := 18; P(a, b, c, d); write(d) end procedure P(v, w, x, y); ; y := w end program Example; begin program Example; begin (1) a := 17; (2) b := 18; (3) P(a, b, c, d); (4) write(d) end procedure P(v, w, x, y); (5) x := v; (6) y := w end a := 17; a := 17; b := 18; P(a, b, c, d); end procedure P(v, w, x, y); ; y := w end Slice with Weiser’s algo Actual Slice

  34. Horwitz, Reps, and Binkley Algo • Computes precise inter-procedural static slices: • 1. SDG, a graph representation for multi-procedure programs • 2. Computation of inter-procedural summary information • precise dependence relations between i/p & o/t parameters • explicitly present in SDG as summary edges • 3. Two-pass algorithm for extracting interprocedural slices from an SDG

  35. Multi-procedure program

  36. Horwitz, Reps, and Binkley Algo1) Structure of SDG • SDG = PDG for main program, & a procedure dependence graph for each procedure • SDG <> PDG (Vertices and edges are different) • For each call statement, there is a call-site vertex in the SDG as well as actual-in and actual-out vertices

  37. 1) Structure of SDG • Each procedure dependence graph has an entry vertex, and formal-in and formal-outvertices • interprocedural dependence edges: (i) control dependence edge (call-site vertex & entry vertex) (ii) parameter-in edge between corresponding actual-in and formal-in vertices, (iii) a parameter out edge between corresponding formal-out and actual-out vertices, and (iv) summary edges that represent transitiveinterprocedural data dependences

  38. 1) Structure of SDG

  39. Horwitz, Reps, and Binkley Algo2) and 3) • Second part: • Models the calling relationships between the procedures (as in a call graph) • Compute subordinate characteristic graph • For each procedure in the program, this graph contains edges that correspond to precise transitive flow dependences between its input and output parameters. • Third part: • summary edges of an SDG serve to circumvent the calling context problem • First phase: all vertices from which ‘s’ can be reached without descending into procedure calls (slicing starts at vertex s) • Second phase: remaining vertices in the slice by descending into all previously side-stepped calls

  40. COMPLETE SDG NEXT: Complete SDG for the example program shown above

  41. SDG style interpretation • Thin solid arrows  represent flow dependences, • Thick solid arrows correspond to control dependences, • Thin dashed arrows  Used for call, parameter-in, and parameter-out dependences, • Thick dashed arrows  Transitive inter-procedural flow dependences. • Shaded vertices Vertices in the slice w.r.t. statement write(product) • Light shading  Vertices identified in the first phase • Dark shading  Vertices identified in the second phase

  42. The slice with criteria (10, product) program Example; begin (1) read(n); (2) i := 1; (3) sum := 0; (4) product := 1; (5) while i <= n do begin (6) Add(sum, i); (7) Multiply(product, i); (8) Add(i, 1) end; (9) write(sum); (10) write(product) end procedure Add(a; b); begin 11) a := a + b End procedure Multiply(c; d); begin 12) j := 1; 13) k := 0; 14) while j <= d do begin 15) Add(k, c); 16) Add(j, 1); end; 17) c := k end

  43. Application of slicing • Debugging and program analysis • Program differencing and program integration • analyzing an old and a new version of a program • partitioning the components • compares slices in order to detect equivalent behaviors • Software maintenance • change at some place in a program  behavior of other parts of the program

  44. QUESTIONS

More Related