Sat 13 Jan 2018 11:00 - 11:30 at Crocker - Session 1

The theory and practice of static analysis differ greatly. In static-analysis research, the focus is commonly on analyses that are proven sound, apply to small calculi or toy languages, and use sophisticated techniques to achieve precision. In industry, static analyses are unsound, apply to real languages, and use simple techniques in order to scale to large programs.

Static-analysis researchers avoid unsound analyses, because it is not clear what one can formally say about an unsound analysis. Sure, it helps people in practice, but what precise statement can one make about it? Is the merit of an unsound analysis based purely on opinion?

I believe it is beneficial to characterize unsound analyses mathematically; to develop rigorous ways of evaluating them and formal models describing their behavior. Then, theoreticians would be able to approach unsound analyses systematically, and develop novel ways of reasoning about such analyses. In addition, practitioners would be able to compare the pros and cons of various analyses in a precise way.

Abstract (obt18-paper9.pdf)79KiB

Conference Day
Sat 13 Jan

Displayed time zone: Tijuana, Baja California change

10:30 - 12:00
10:30
30m
Talk
Synthesizing Program-Specific Static Analyses
Off the Beaten Track
Colin GordonDrexel University
File Attached
11:00
30m
Talk
On quantifying the degree of unsoundness of static analyses
Off the Beaten Track
File Attached
11:30
30m
Talk
Explaining Type Errors
Off the Beaten Track
Brent YorgeyHendrix College, Richard A. EisenbergBryn Mawr College, USA, Harley D. Eades IIIAugusta University
File Attached