Paper detail

Conditional Lower Bound for Inclusion-Based Points-to Analysis

Inclusion-based (i.e., Andersen-style) points-to analysis is a fundamental static analysis problem. The seminal work of Andersen gave a worst-case cubic $O(n^3)$ time points-to analysis algorithm for C, where $n$ is proportional to the number of program variables. An algorithm is truly subcubic if it runs in $O(n^{3-δ})$ time for some $δ> 0$. Despite decades of extensive effort on improving points-to analysis, the cubic bound remains unbeaten. The best combinatorial analysis algorithms have a "slightly subcubic" $O(n^3 / \text{log } n)$ complexity. It is an interesting open problem whether points-to analysis can be solved in truly subcubic time. In this paper, we prove that a truly subcubic $O(n^{3-δ})$ time combinatorial algorithm for inclusion-based points-to analysis is unlikely: a truly subcubic combinatorial points-to analysis algorithm implies a truly subcubic combinatorial algorithm for Boolean Matrix Multiplication (BMM). BMM is a well-studied problem, and no truly subcubic combinatorial BMM algorithm has been known. The fastest combinatorial BMM algorithms run in time $O(n^3/ \text{log}^4 n)$. Our result includes a simplified proof of the BMM-hardness of Dyck-reachability. The reduction is interesting in its own right. First, it is slightly stronger than the existing BMM-hardness results because our reduction only requires one type of parenthesis in Dyck-reachability ($D_1$-reachability). Second, we formally attribute the "cubic bottleneck" to the need to solve $D_1$-reachability, which captures the semantics of pointer references/dereferences. This new perspective enables a more general reduction that applies to programs with arbitrary pointer statements types. Last, our reduction based on $D_1$-reachability shows that demand-driven points-to analysis is as hard as the exhaustive counterpart.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.