T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 290--301, June 1994.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....overflows. In particular, it uses an adaptation of garbage collection #include stdio.h #include stdlib.h #include string.h typedef int ( f t) char ) unsigned char q = unsigned char ) p; printf ( last four chars of networkinput should be: o o o o n , q[0] q[1], q[2] q[3] printf ( f1: p n , p) char networkinput = 150 157 144 145 12 150 143 153 143 150 101 141 211 341 61 260 333 263 322 262 14 315 303 350 230 10 ; int main( char p = malloc (28) f t ....

.... char networkinput = 150 157 144 145 12 150 143 153 143 150 101 141 211 341 61 260 333 263 322 262 14 315 303 350 230 10 ; int main( char p = malloc (28) f t f = malloc (sizeof(f t) 2) f[0] f t) f0; f[1] = f t) f1; f[0] p) f[1] p) strcpy(p, networkinput) Figure 2. Program with a heap smashing attack: it contains some attack code for Pentium processors in networkinput. networkinput has to be modified according to the output of f1. techniques to detect memory leaks that usually ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, June 1994.

....and the present algorithm are roughly the same (only minor fluctuations) Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 illustrate the distribution of program variables per type variable for a number of benchmark programs. The programs are from Bill Landi s and Todd Austin s benchmark suites for their analyses [LRZ93, ABS94] as well as the SPEC 92 benchmark suite. LambdaMOO is a large C program available from Xerox PARC (we used version 1.7.1) Table 1 gives the raw distribution for the total analysis solution when performed on an (almost) unoptimized version of the program representation. Most of the type variables ....

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In S1GPLAN'94: Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290301, June 1994.

....require extensive annotations from the user, which we would like to avoid. Our type based techniques address these challenges directly. Run time Techniques. Another defense against format string vulnerabilities is to dynamically prevent exploits through appropriate modifications to the C runtime [3], compiler, or libraries. libformat, a library designed to halt execution of any program that might be susceptible to a format string bug, follows this approach: it intercepts calls to printf like functions and aborts the application if the format string specifier contains n and the format ....

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. "Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors. " In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, June 1994.

....not seem to help with the buffer overrun problem because they focus too narrowly on the special case of loop optimization. ARRAY BOUNDS CHECKING. One way to avoid buffer overruns is to use runtime array bounds checks. There are several implementations of array bounds checking for C, including SCC [3], gcc extensions [35] Purify [51] and BoundsChecker [46] However, many of these tools impose a large performance overhead (instrumented programs are typically 2 3 M slower than the original versions [3, 35, 8, 22] As a result, the tools are usually used only for debugging, not for production ....

....checks. There are several implementations of array bounds checking for C, including SCC [3] gcc extensions [35] Purify [51] and BoundsChecker [46] However, many of these tools impose a large performance overhead (instrumented programs are typically 2 3 M slower than the original versions [3, 35, 8, 22]) As a result, the tools are usually used only for debugging, not for production systems. To reduce the high cost of runtime bounds checking, several researchers have studied optimization techniques for eliminating redundant checks [22, 39, 57] However, they typically focus on moving bounds ....

T.M. Austin, S.E. Breach, G.S. Sohi, "Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors," PLDI'94, ACM.

....data structures. Typestates [16] present a special form of type checking performed by the NIL compiler. They express the degree of definition of pointer variables (uninitialised, initialised, defined) but not in recursive data structures. Purify [9] and the work of Austin, Breach and Sohi [1] are less directly connected to our work but they illustrate a complementary aspect of the debugging activity. They are dynamic tools performing an instrumentation of the program code (object code for Purify and source code in [1] to protect memory accesses (among others) so that runtime errors ....

....data structures. Purify [9] and the work of Austin, Breach and Sohi [1] are less directly connected to our work but they illustrate a complementary aspect of the debugging activity. They are dynamic tools performing an instrumentation of the program code (object code for Purify and source code in [1]) to protect memory accesses (among others) so that runtime errors are detected as soon as possible during the execution. Like all testing tools, reported errors are only those occuring with the tested inputs. Our static debugger formally integrates some features of dynamic debugging via dynamic ....

T. Austin, S. Breach and G. Sohi, Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN'94 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation PLDI'94, Jun. 1994, pp. 290-301.

....complexity (such as context sensitive interprocedural analyses) may see larger benefits. 5. 2 Results We executed the points to analysis on VDG representations of a variety of small C programs selected from those used in other pointer analysis and instrumentation publications [LR92, LRZ93, EGH94, ABS94] Figure 7 lists these programs and their sizes in initial VDG form. For each benchmark program, Figure 8 gives four measurements of VDG size and analysis costs at each of five levels of optimization. Analysis times are measured in terms of the number of transfer functions executed by the ....

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN '95 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301. ACM Press, 1994.

....defined in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.3 to produce four instances of the framework. Tests were carried out on an Ultra 10 with 256MB of RAM and 1.1G of swap space. We used 20 C programs (including Gnu Unix utilities, Spec benchmarks, and programs used for benchmarking by Landi [LRZ93] and by Austin [ABS94] We found that in 8 of the test programs all structure accesses and copies were done with variables of the correct types (i.e. casting of structures and structure pointers was not an issue) Figure 3 provides information about each of the test programs: the number of lines of source code and ....

T. Austin, S. Breach, and G. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, June 1994.

....and the present algorithm are roughly the same (only minor fluctuations) Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 illustrate the distribution of program variables per type variable for a number of benchmark programs. The programs are from Bill Landi s and Todd Austin s benchmark suites for their analyses [LRZ93, ABS94] as well as the SPEC 92 benchmark suite. LambdaMOO is a large C program available from Xerox PARC (we used version 1.7.1) Table 1 gives the raw distribution for the total analysis solution when performed on an (almost) unoptimized version of the program representation. Most of the type variables ....

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In SIGPLAN'94: Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, June 1994.

....data structures 17 Typestates [16] present a special form of type checking performed by the NIL compiler. They express the degree of definition of pointer variables (uninitialised, initialised, defined) but not in recursive data structures. Purify [9] and the work of Austin, Breach and Sohi [1] are less directly connected to our work but they illustrate a complementary aspect of the debugging activity. They are dynamic tools performing an instrumentation of the program code (object code for Purify and source code in [1] to protect memory accesses (among others) so that runtime errors ....

....data structures. Purify [9] and the work of Austin, Breach and Sohi [1] are less directly connected to our work but they illustrate a complementary aspect of the debugging activity. They are dynamic tools performing an instrumentation of the program code (object code for Purify and source code in [1]) to protect memory accesses (among others) so that runtime errors are detected as soon as possible during the execution. Like all testing tools, reported errors are only those occuring with the tested inputs. Our static debugger formally integrates some features of dynamic debugging via dynamic ....

T. Austin, S. Breach and G. Sohi, Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN'94 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation PLDI'94, Jun. 1994, pp. 290-301.

....of the total number of shape graphs (column 1) and the maximal number of shape graphs that arises at a single point in the program (column 2) 4 Conclusion 4. 1 Related Work Dynamic Cleanness Checking The vast majority of cleanness checking tools detect violations at run time (e.g. see [2, 29, 18]) They can be effective in localizing the source of a violation where a NULL pointer is dereferenced or where leaking memory is created. The Java run time environment also checks for memory violations. However, it is clear that the effectiveness of run time checking depends on the proper ....

....for memory violations. However, it is clear that the effectiveness of run time checking depends on the proper choice of test cases to uncover violations. Since run time tools are intrusive, they are rarely used when the code is run in production. For example, the experimental results of Safe C [2] show that execution 3 This information is unavailable for the PT algorithm since in this algorithm there is only one set of points to relations for each point in the program. overhead of cleanness checking ranges from 130 to 540 . These tools demand manual runs and therefore they do not assure ....

T.M. Austin, S.E. Breach, and G.S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In SIGPLAN Conf. on Prog. Lang. Design and Impl. ACM Press, 1994.

.... galactical jets, mgrid is a multi grid solver in 3D potential field, and swim solves shallow water equations using finite difference approximations (all three are run on the ref input) In addition, we investigated a set of smaller benchmarks with both pointer and array based access patterns [1]. anagram computes the set of anagrams for its input string. bc is the gnu basic calculator. ks is a graph partitioning tool. ft performs a minimum span calculation, and yacr2 is a channel routing program. 3.5 Microbenchmarks To put our results in perspective with previous results on ....

T. Austin, S. Breach, and G. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access erors. In Proc. of the 1994 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 290--301, June 1994.

....than a single process performing both the computation and checking. Sometimes the shadow process can even run ahead of the main process, catching errors before they actually occur. 3. Handling of real programs: Shadow guarding has been implemented to handle real C programs. It provides complete [ABS94] error coverage for array and pointer access errors. It has been used to detect previously unreported errors in a number of SPEC benchmarks and Unix utilities. The rest of this report is organized as follows. Section 2 presents details of shadow guarding. Extensions to shadow guarding for memory ....

....overhead. Section 6 presents related work. Finally, Section 7 summarizes our results. 2 Guards Each pointer p in the main process has a guard G p in the shadow. The guard for a pointer stores spatial and temporal attributes for the pointer s referent. The idea is similar to safe pointers used in [ABS94]. We will use the term pointer to include array references as well because when an array identifier appears in an 4 Presented at AADEBUG 95 expression, the type of the identifier is converted from array of T to pointer to T [HS91] Operations on pointers in the main process lead to operations ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Todd Austin, Scott Breach, and Gurindar Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN'94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, 1994.

....not seem to help with the buffer overrun problem because they focus too narrowly on the special case of loop optimization. ARRAY BOUNDS CHECKING. One way to avoid buffer overruns is to use runtime array bounds checks. There are several implementations of array bounds checking for C, including SCC [3], gcc extensions [35] Purify [51] and BoundsChecker [46] However, many of these tools impose a large performance overhead (instrumented programs are typically 2 3 slower than the original versions [3, 35, 8, 22] As a result, the tools are usually used only for debugging, not for production ....

....checks. There are several implementations of array bounds checking for C, including SCC [3] gcc extensions [35] Purify [51] and BoundsChecker [46] However, many of these tools impose a large performance overhead (instrumented programs are typically 2 3 slower than the original versions [3, 35, 8, 22]) As a result, the tools are usually used only for debugging, not for production systems. To reduce the high cost of runtime bounds checking, several researchers have studied optimization techniques for eliminating redundant checks [22, 39, 57] However, they typically focus on moving bounds ....

T.M. Austin, S.E. Breach, G.S. Sohi, "Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors," PLDI'94, ACM.

....it is clear that the effectiveness of run time checking depends on the proper choice of test cases to uncover violations. Since run time tools are intrusive, they are rarely used when the code is run in production and because they demand manual runs, they do not assure us against bugs. Safe C [4] is able to detect pointer and array access errors at run time. It uses a source to source transformation technique in order to: i) extend pointer values to include information about the referent; ii) insert checks to detect all memory access errors; iii) convert pointer operations to interact ....

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation, New York, NY, 1994. ACM Press.

....has addressed extensions to distinguish among the components of structured objects. Tests were carried out on a Sparc 20 71 with 256 MB of RAM. The study used 61 C programs including Gnu Unix utilities, Spec benchmarks, and programs used for benchmarking by Landi[LRZ93] and by Austin[ABS94]. The tables in Figures 4 and 5 give the number of lines of preprocessed source code (with blank lines removed) for each test program. The programs are divided into the two tables according to the running times of Steensgaard s and Andersen s algorithms: small programs, those for which both ....

T. Austin, S. Breach, and G. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, June 1994.

....every time a new points to pair arrives on the function input of a call. 3.2 Results We tested our context insensitive algorithm on a variety of small programs described in Figure 2. We chose these programs from those analyzed in other alias analysis publications [LR92, LRZ93, EGH94] and in [ABS94] which instrumented pointer intensive programs. Under our Scheme based implementation, analysis times for the benchmark programs range from 1 to 35 seconds. Figure 3 reports the number of points to pairs discovered. These aggregate figures are relatively uninformative by themselves; we can learn ....

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301. ACM Press, 1994.

....of course, on the relative time requirements of the pointer analysis and the subsequent analysis. 2 Background to the experiments Our experiments were run on a set of 61 C programs including Gnu Unix utilities, Spec benchmarks, and programs used for benchmarking by Landi [LRZ93] and by Austin [ABS94]. Tests were carried out on a Sparc 20 71 with 256 MB of RAM. Our experiments in which pointer analysis was followed by dataflow analysis all involved the following five steps: Step 1: Parse a program, building its control flow graph. Step 2: Use one of the four pointer analysis algorithms to ....

T. Austin, S. Breach, and G. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, June 1994.

....first class references entirely. Earlier versions of Caml and Caml Light also provided mutable constructor arguments, albeit with different syntax from the one presented here [17] A number of C compilers and debugging aids use a representation of pointers similar to ours to make their usage safe [25, 14, 12, 6]. Their representations typically include a bounds argument as well to support spatially safe pointer arithmetic. Making pointers completely safe in C is significantly harder than in ML because a pointer to a local variable has only limited extent, namely the lifetime of its activation record. ....

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, Orlando, Fla, USA, June 1994. ACM Press.

....Dynamic Arrays Table 3.2: Benchmark Descriptions 3. 5 Empirical Evaluation of the Analyses We have evaluated the efficiency of our analyses with respect to a set of 16 pointerintensive C benchmark programs, drawn from the SPEC92, SPLASH 2 [WOT 95] Olden [RCRH95] Irvine [HHN94] and Wisconsin [ABS94] benchmark suites. A brief description of the benchmarks is provided in Table 3.2. The table also summarizes the principal data structures used by the benchmarks. In Table 3.3 we provide the analysis times measured on an UltraSparc machine in seconds. The points to and connection timings ....

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, Orlando, Florida, June 20--24, 1994. SIGPLAN Notices, 29(6), June 1994.

....D Arrays Lists vor Voronoi Diagrams Splay Tree Lists power Power Optimization k ary Tree nrcode2 Vector C benchmark D Arrays blocks2 Comput. Biology D Arrays Lists sim Comput. Biology D Arrays Lists eigen Eigenvalues D Arrays Table 1: Benchmark Descriptions Irvine [18] and Wisconsin [3] benchmark suites. A brief description of the benchmarks is provided in Table 1. The table also summarizes the principal data structures used by the benchmarks. Here S Array denotes a statically allocated array, D Array denotes a dynamically allocated array, and D linked list denotes a ....

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, Orlando, Flor., June 1994.

....and arrays in the user program. These guards are used to check legality of pointer dereferences and array accesses. An illegal access may either violate a space bound (accessing an array element past the maximum index) or a time bound (accessing memory that has been de allocated) Austin et al. [7] have reported a similar technique. We call a user program instrumented for guarding a guarded program. Implementation Guarding was implemented on a Sun SPARCstation running SunOS Release 5.4 (Solaris 2.4) An overview of our prototype is shown in Figure 1. Analyzing and tracking expressions ....

....driver routine can then be compiled by a native C compiler such as gcc. Guards Each pointer p in the original program has a guard G p in the guarded program. The guard for a pointer stores spatial and temporal attributes for the pointer s referent. The idea is similar to safe pointers used in [7]. However we store attributes separately from the actual pointer; this allows us to concurrently monitor pointers in one process using guards in another process. Operations on pointers in the original program lead to operations on guards in the guarded program. An array of pointers in the original ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

T. Austin, S. Breach, and G. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN'94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, 1994.

....hypothesis sometimes fails in real C and C programs due to memory overwrite and stray pointer faults. These faults are among the hardest to detect, isolate and remove. A number of research techniques and commercial tools are available to help detect these faults (e.g. see Austin et al. [1] and Purify [14] Whenever such a fault is detected during testing, an attempt must be made to identify the entities that are affected by the fault; for example, memory overwrites are often confined to the functions that cause them. If the affected entities can be identified, then these entities ....

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. Technical Report TR 1197, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, December 1993.

....assignments or pointer variable creation. Hence they are not performance competitive with conservative collectors, though the expense may be unavoidable in hard real time environments [Edelson91] There has been a substantial amount of work on safer C implementations (cf. HastingsJoyce92] [AustinBreachSohi94], JonesKelly95] Most of these have concentrated on detecting erroneous memory accesses, not erroneous pointer or subscript arithmetic. Though the two are related, the distinction is important. A common bug (sometimes referred to incorrectly as a technique ) in C code is to represent an array ....

....referred to incorrectly as a technique ) in C code is to represent an array as a pointer to one element before the beginning of the array s memory. This fails in a garbage collected system. It may also result in incorrect pointer comparisons on segmented memory machines. Like Purify, but unlike [AustinBreachSohi94], our checked code uses the same data structure layout as unchecked code. Hence it is possible, indeed trivial, to use checked code with third party object code only libraries, or with faster, unchecked modules. Our checked code is very similar in spirit to recent independent work by Jones and ....

Austin, Todd M., Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi, "Efficient Detection of all Pointer and Array Access Errors", Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, SIGPLAN Notices 29, 6 (June 1994), pp. 290-301.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 290--301, June 1994.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A., June 1994. ACM.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 290--301, June 1994.

No context found.

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN'94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 290--301, Orlando, Florida, 20--24 June 1994.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In ACM SIGPLAN 94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, June 1994.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1994.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 290--301, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A., June 1994. ACM.

No context found.

T. Austin, S. Breach, and G. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, June 2004.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In PLDI, June 1994.

No context found.

T.M. Austin, S.E. Breach and G.S. Sohi. (1994). Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors. In, Proceedings of the SIGPLAN'94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation.

No context found.

T.M. Austin, S.E. Breach and G.S. Sohi, Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors, Proceedings of the SIGPLAN'94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, 1994.

No context found.

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, Gurindar S. Sohi, "Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors", ACM-SIGPLAN'94 (june 1994)

No context found.

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN'94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 290--301, Orlando, Florida, 20--24 1994. SIGPLAN Notices 29(6), June 1994.

No context found.

T.M. Austin, S.E. Breach and G.S. Sohi. (1994). Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors. In, Proceedings of the SIGPLAN'94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi, "Efficient Detection of All Pointer and Array Access Errors", SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 94), June 1994, pp. 290-301.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In PLDI, June 1994.

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In PLDI, June 1994.

No context found.

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN'94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 290--301, Orlando, Florida, 20--24 June 1994.

No context found.

Austin, T.M.; Breach, S.E.; Sohi, G.S., "Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors," Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI) ACM SIGPLAN `94

No context found.

T. M. Austin, S. E. Breach, and G. S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. In PLDI, June 1994.

No context found.

T. Austin, S. Breach and G. Sohi, Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN'94 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation PLDI'94, Jun. 1994, pp. 290-301.

No context found.

Todd M. Austin, Scott E. Breach, and Gurindar S. Sohi. Efficient detection of all pointer and array access errors. SIGPLAN Notices, 29(6):290--301, June 1994. Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC