Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2208.12561

Computing Maximum Fixed Point Solutions over Feasible Paths in Data Flow Analyses

Abstract

The control flow graph (CFG) representation of a procedure used by virtually all flow-sensitive program analyses, admits a large number of infeasible control flow paths i.e., these paths do not occur in any execution of the program. Hence the information reaching along infeasible paths in an analysis is spurious. This affects the precision of the conventional maximum fixed point (MFP) solution of the data flow analysis, because it includes the information reaching along all control flow paths. The existing approaches for removing this imprecision are either specific to a data flow problem with no straightforward generalization or involve control flow graph restructuring which may exponentially blow up the size of the CFG. We lift the notion of MFP solution to define the notion of feasible path MFP (FPMFP) solutions that exclude the data flowing along known infeasible paths. The notion of FPMFP is generic and does not involve CFG restructuring. Instead, it takes externally supplied information about infeasible paths and lifts any data flow analysis to an analysis that maintains the distinctions between different paths where these distinctions are beneficial, and ignores them where they are not. Thus it gets the benefit of a path-sensitive analysis where it is useful without performing a conventional path-sensitive analysis. We evaluated the proposed feasible path MFP solutions for reaching definitions analysis and potentially uninitialized variable analysis on 30 benchmarks. The evaluation results indicate that precision improvement in these two analyses respectively reduce the number def-use pairs by up to 13.6% (average 2.87%, geometric mean 1.75%), and reduce the potentially uninitialized variable alarms by up to 100% (average 18.5%, geo. mean 3%). We found that the FPMFP computation time was 2.9X of MFP computation time on average.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Komal Pathade, Uday Khedker. 2022-08-26. Computing Maximum Fixed Point Solutions over Feasible Paths in Data Flow Analyses. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.12561

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE