1
$\begingroup$

I am interested in the set of the variables that satisfy the following properties. I would like to find a proper name for them.

We assume that a program $\phi$ has a set of variables $v_0, \ldots, v_n$. I am interested in a subset $S$ of $\{v_0; \ldots; v_n\}$, that informally speaking impacts the execution of the program (i.e., any execution of its statements). For instance

1) For the statement $v_0 := v_1$ that may be executed, $v_1$ impacts the execution of the statement. Thus, $v_1 \in S$ and $v_1 \in SY$.

2) For the statement $v_0 := v_1 * 0$ that may be executed, $v_1$ impacts the execution of the statement, because if $v_1$ is a string value, the multiplication of string and $0$ raises a type error. Thus, $v_1 \in S$ and $v_1 \in SY$.

3) In the statement "If true Then $v_1$ := 1 Else $v_1$ := $v_2$ End", $v_2$ does NOT impact the execution of the statement, because the else branch of the statement will never be executed; the value of $v_2$ will never be read here. Thus, $v_2 \notin S$, but $v_2 \in SY$.

I will define the semantics properly, but before that I would like to find a proper name for the set $S$ that fits the convention. I am thinking of read variables? input variables? possible input variables? precedent variables? dependancy variables? or supporting variables?

Could anyone help?

Edit 1:

Thanks for all the comments, they are really helpful. I decide to edit the OP to make the question clearer.

Actually, I planed to introduce the notion of a set S about semantics, and then another set SY about syntax that is always a superset of S (because S is hard to analyse). Then, I will make a static analysis to over-approximate SY, thus it over-approximates also S. My question here is about a consistent terminology about S and SY (for the case of read/input).

I have added the case for SY in the 3 examples above. You mentioned another 2 examples:

4) For "If factorial(3)==6 Then v_1 := 1 Else v_1 := v_2 End" (babou), we have $v_2 \notin S$ and $v_2 \in SY$.

5) For "x := x" (Martin Berger), one understanding is that the value of x is first still read, then be assigned to x, so $x \in S$; another understanding is that the value of x does not impact the execution of this statement, so $x \notin S$. I will be OK with both of them (though personally I prefer the latter), as long as if I give a terminology and a definition to S, it is consistent for all the examples. In any case, based on the syntax, we always have $x \in SY$.

Regarding "live variables" (Klaus Draeger), indeed, as babou understood, I am not concerned about "a point in the program regarding what variables are still be needed to finish execution from that point".

Regarding "use-define or use-definition" (babou), from that web page, my understanding is UD is about syntax, and it is what I am going to do with SY (e.g., see what is on the left-hand/right-hand side of an assignment). If I call SY used variables, what should I call S?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I suggest "relevant variables"... but to be honest, I don't know what exactly you hoping for.. :) $\endgroup$ – Danny Nov 12 '14 at 13:20
  • $\begingroup$ "relevant variables" is not bad... in this case, I still need to differentiate "read" and "write" (or "input" and "output")... so I would say "read-relevant variable" and "write-relevant variable"? $\endgroup$ – SoftTimur Nov 13 '14 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ The terms "effect" and "effect set" are also used. $\endgroup$ – Martin Berger Nov 13 '14 at 11:46
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinBerger The concepts of "effect" and "effect set" seem intended to deal with side-effects in general (cf Wadler and others), whereas my feeling from the question is that the OP seems more interested in dependency aspects, and specifically on variables. $\endgroup$ – babou Nov 13 '14 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ Your second example is different from the others in that in a sufficiently strongly-typed language, this would actually not be a legal program. Other than that, what you describe is essentially the set of "live variables" as used in data-flow analysis. $\endgroup$ – Klaus Draeger Nov 13 '14 at 14:20
2
+50
$\begingroup$

This new version of the answer tries to take into account the changes in the question, and the information exchanged in the comments.

This answer assumes that $S$ should be the set of variables that have a content that is used in some defined fragment of the program, rather than, at some point in the program, the variables with a content that will be needed before the end of the program.

For the latter, the usual term is live variables, as remarked in a comment by Klaus Draeger.

The former is a generalisation of the concept of use, as appears in dataflow analysis, and particularly in such concepts as Use-Define or Use-Definition chains (UD chains), as well as Definition-Use chains (DU chains). The concept of use is usually intended for elementary program statements such as an expression appearing in an assignment or a function call. Recall that this originates with analysis and optimization of old Fortran programs in the late 1960s and in the 1970s, and the was no real concept of a compound statement at the time in the Fortran language.

But there is no reason not to extend the concept to larger program fragments that form a meaningful whole. Thus used variable or used set seem to be exactly the concepts and terminology that you are looking for.

Now, there may be a difficulty in defining what is implied in the expression "is used by". It may just mean: "syntactically appears in", which is as simple as you can make it. This is indeed purely syntactic, but rather non satisfactory, because the variable may well appear only in a statement that changes its value, rather than use the value it already has. This is too simplistic is is clearly not what was intended by the creators of the concept.

Then a better definition will state that the occurrence of a variable must imply that its value is actually used. But as soon as you say that, you are no longer in syntax since you must use some of the meaning of the program fragment to know whether the occurrence of the variable is for using or for changing its value (or possibly is simply irrelevant). And when you start using the semantics of the language construct, there is no clear limit on how much of the semantics you can use.

The definition given in page 632 of the Dragon Book 1988 is:

We say that a variable is used at a statement $s$ if its $r$-value may be required.

First one should note the use of if rather than iff, which clearly indicates that some variables not meeting the condition may end up being qualified as used. This even reinforced by the may be.

Then, this almost definition does not bring much light on the issue. What does it mean to be required. Typically, if a variable is an argument to a subprogram (procedure, function, method, ...), you may think it is required. But if further analysis shows that the value of this argument is not actually used in the subprogram, and the argument is only used to return a result, the $r$-value of the variable is not required. Some may object that this could be handled by an appropriate type system, which they consider syntax (I do not). But the fact that a value is not required may depend on deeper semantic analysis (such as in example 4 of the question). Furthermore, the evolution of type systems and type theory tends to allow inclusion in types of most thing you may want to say or prove about a variable, which would hardly qualify as syntactic.

Thus the situation is that there is not really an undisputable syntactic (?) reference definition of "used variable", and it depends essentially on an arbitrary choice implied by the set of techniques used to analyze the program and the level of knowledge it brings regarding actual use of the variable value at run-time.

On the other hand it is possible to give a reference semantic definition for a set $S$ of used variables:

A variable is used in some program fragment iff there is a computation of that program such that the results and effects of executing that fragment depend on the value of that variable before execution.

This is not completely satisfactory, because there are other parameters that could be considered, and might suggest a different terminology, though not change the above remarks about syntax and semantics.

For example, in a sequential context, the above definition is clear, and refers to the value of the variable before executing the program (fragment). However, one may still question what is considered an effect, what is an impact on execution. Execution time could well be part of the semantics of a program, or not. Then, in a parallel execution context, you would consider more than the initial value of the variable. But I will ignore this, as the question has not been considering it (as far as I can see), and I will stick to the definition above.

The set $S$ thus defined semantically is the most precise (i.e. minimal) set of variables that can matter in any computation, though some may not matter in some computation.

But this set is not necessarily computable. It is recursively enumerable, since a Turing Machine could simulate in parallel all possible computations, and enumerate all the variables that turn out to be used effectively (in the sense of our definition) in some computation. But determining that some variable will not be used in a computation is undecidable.

The best we can hope for is to exhibit a superset of $S$, such that we are sure not to miss any relevant variable. This is precisely what is done by the various techniques that can be called upon to determine the used variables. But they do not all produce the same result and the results they give can be more or less precise.

If some program analysis technique $T_i$ produces a set $S_i$ of used variable, we say that $T_i$ is correct iff $S\subseteq S_i$.

If two techniques $T_1$ and $T_2$ produce respectively the sets $S_1$ and $S_2$, then $T1$ is better, more precise than $T_2$ iff $S\subseteq S_1\subseteq S_2$.

The only thing that has a precise definition (up to the above caveat) is the set S, enven though possibly not computable. It is also the reference for any other set to be considered acceptable in practice, and is the smallest, the most precise of them all.

Hence, the expressions "used set" and "used variable" should be reserved for that set.

And I suggest that the other sets that are considered in practice, should use the same name, qualified with the name of the technique that produced them. If the technique is unique and unnamed, it could be called the computed use set (what is called SYin the question), or just used set when there is no ambiguity.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure this is right, because use-define is about syntax, while the original question is about semantics. For example x := x; S uses and defines x in the leading statement, but S is not semantically affected by this. $\endgroup$ – Martin Berger Nov 13 '14 at 11:11
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinBerger I do adress the issue in my answer. But SoftTimur is not really clear about it. Even the basic definition of D-U or U-D chains is actually part of what is pragmatically called static semantics, though necessarily based on the syntactic representation of the program. It already requires some algorithmic processing, and there is no reason to limit that. Why should compiler writers use a weak definition when stronger ones, based on deeper analysis, can lead to stronger results and better optimizations. The strict semantics view is just a limit. $\endgroup$ – babou Nov 13 '14 at 12:01
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the comments... Please see my update in OP@MartinBerger @babou $\endgroup$ – SoftTimur Nov 13 '14 at 17:02

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.