MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213724464 · doi:10.1145/3022671.2983991

Call graphs for languages with parametric polymorphism

2016· article· en· W3213724464 on OpenAlexaff
Dmitry Petrashko, Vlad Ureche, Ondřej Lhoták, Martin Odersky

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCall graphComputer scienceBytecodeProgramming languageCompilerJava bytecodeJavaScalaGraphProgram analysisTheoretical computer scienceContext (archaeology)Static analysisParallel computingJava appletJava annotation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of contemporary object oriented languages depends on optimizations such as devirtualization, inlining, and specialization, and these in turn depend on precise call graph analysis. Existing call graph analyses do not take advantage of the information provided by the rich type systems of contemporary languages, in particular generic type arguments. Many existing approaches analyze Java bytecode, in which generic types have been erased. This paper shows that this discarded information is actually very useful as the context in a context-sensitive analysis, where it significantly improves precision and keeps the running time small. Specifically, we propose and evaluate call graph construction algorithms in which the contexts of a method are (i) the type arguments passed to its type parameters, and (ii) the static types of the arguments passed to its term parameters. The use of static types from the caller as context is effective because it allows more precise dispatch of call sites inside the callee. Our evaluation indicates that the average number of contexts required per method is small. We implement the analysis in the Dotty compiler for Scala, and evaluate it on programs that use the type-parametric Scala collections library and on the Dotty compiler itself. The context-sensitive analysis runs 1.4x faster than a context-insensitive one and discovers 20% more monomorphic call sites at the same time. When applied to method specialization, the imprecision in a context-insensitive call graph would require the average method to be cloned 22 times, whereas the context-sensitive call graph indicates a much more practical 1.00 to 1.50 clones per method. We applied the proposed analysis to automatically specialize generic methods. The resulting automatic transformation achieves the same performance as state-of-the-art techniques requiring manual annotations, while reducing the size of the generated bytecode by up to 5x.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGPLAN NoticesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207