Search

A program schema defines a class of programs, all of which have identical statement structure, but whose functions and predicates may differ. A schema thus defines an entire class of programs according to how its symbols are interpreted. A subschema of a schema is obtained from a schema by deleting some of its statements. We prove that given a schema $S$ which is predicate-linear, free and liberal, such that the true and false parts of every if predicate satisfy a simple additional condition, and a slicing criterion defined by the final value of a given variable after execution of any program defined by $S$, the minimal subschema of $S$ which respects this slicing criterion contains all the function and predicate symbols `needed' by the variable according to the data dependence and control dependence relations used in program slicing, which is the symbol set given by Weiser's static slicing algorithm. Thus this algorithm gives predicate-minimal slices for classes of programs represented by schemas satisfying our set of conditions. We also give an example to show that the corresponding result with respect to the slicing criterion defined by termination behaviour is incorrect. This complements a result by the authors in which $S$ was required to be function-linear, instead of predicate-linear., Comment: 28 pages

Given a program, a quotient can be obtained from it by deleting zero or more statements. The field of program slicing is concerned with computing a quotient of a program which preserves part of the behaviour of the original program. All program slicing algorithms take account of the structural properties of a program such as control dependence and data dependence rather than the semantics of its functions and predicates, and thus work, in effect, with program schemas. The dynamic slicing criterion of Korel and Laski requires only that program behaviour is preserved in cases where the original program follows a particular path, and that the slice/quotient follows this path. In this paper we formalise Korel and Laski's definition of a dynamic slice as applied to linear schemas, and also formulate a less restrictive definition in which the path through the original program need not be preserved by the slice. The less restrictive definition has the benefit of leading to smaller slices. For both definitions, we compute complexity bounds for the problems of establishing whether a given slice of a linear schema is a dynamic slice and whether a linear schema has a non-trivial dynamic slice and prove that the latter problem is NP-hard in both cases. We also give an example to prove that minimal dynamic slices (whether or not they preserve the original path) need not be unique., Comment: 26 pages, already published

Pomsets constitute one of the most basic models of concurrency. A pomset is a generalisation of a word over an alphabet in that letters may be partially ordered. A term $t$ using the bi-Kleene operations $0,1, +, \cdot\, ,^*, \parallel, ^{(*)}$ defines a language $ \mathopen{[\![ } t \mathclose{]\!] } $ of pomsets in a natural way. We prove that every valid universal equality over pomset languages using these operations is a consequence of the equational theory of regular languages (in which parallel multiplication and iteration are undefined) plus that of the commutative-regular languages (in which sequential multiplication and iteration are undefined). We also show that the class of $\textit{rational}$ pomset languages (that is, those languages generated from singleton pomsets using the bi-Kleene operations) is closed under all Boolean operations. An $ \textit{ideal}$ of a pomset $p$ is a pomset using the letters of $p$, but having an ordering at least as strict as $p$. A bi-Kleene term $t$ thus defines the set $ \textbf{Id} (\mathopen{[\![ } t \mathclose{]\!] }) $ of ideals of pomsets in $ \mathopen{[\![ } t \mathclose{]\!] } $. We prove that if $t$ does not contain commutative iteration $^{(*)}$ (in our terminology, $t$ is bw-rational) then $\textbf{Id} (\mathopen{[\![ } t \mathclose{]\!] }) \cap \textbf{Pom}_{sp}$, where $ \textbf{Pom}_{sp}$ is the set of pomsets generated from singleton pomsets using sequential and parallel multiplication ($ \cdot$ and $ \parallel$) is defined by a bw-rational term, and if two such terms $t,t'$ define the same ideal language, then $t'=t$ is provable from the Kleene axioms for $0,1, +, \cdot\, ,^*$ plus the commutative idempotent semiring axioms for $0,1, +, \parallel$ plus the exchange law $ (u \parallel v)\cdot ( x \parallel y) \le v \cdot y \parallel u \cdot x $., Comment: 35 pages

The problem of deciding whether one point in a program is data dependent upon another is fundamental to program analysis and has been widely studied. In this paper we consider this problem at the abstraction level of program schemas in which computations occur in the Herbrand domain of terms and predicate symbols, which represent arbitrary predicate functions, are allowed. Given a vertex l in the flowchart of a schema S having only equality (variable copying) assignments and variables v,w, we show that it is PSPACE-hard to decide whether there exists an execution of a program defined by S in which v holds the initial value of w at at least one occurrence of l on the path of execution, with membership in PSPACE holding provided there is a constant upper bound on the arity of any predicate in S. We also consider the `dual' problem in which v is required to hold the initial value of w at every occurrence of l, for which the analogous results hold. Additionally, the former problem for programs with non-deterministic branching (in effect, free schemas) in which assignments with functions are allowed is proved to be polynomial-time decidable provided a constant upper bound is placed upon the number of occurrences of the concurrency operator in the schemas being considered. This result is promising since many concurrent systems have a relatively small number of threads (concurrent processes), especially when compared with the number of statements they have., Comment: 21 pages, 6 figures (all included in cncurr.acm.tex source file)