When Size Does Matter

1. Florence Benoy and Andy King. Inferring argument size relationships with CLP(R). In John P. Gallagher, editor, Logic Programming Synthesis and Transformation, LOPSTR’96, Proceedings, volume 1207 of LNCS, pages 204–223, 1997.

   Google Scholar 

2. Annalisa Bossi, Nicoletta Cocco, and Massimo Fabris. Typed norms. In Bernd Krieg-Brückner, editor, ESOP’92, 4th European Symposium on Programming, Proceedings, volume 582 of LNCS, pages 73–92. Springer, 1992.

   Google Scholar 

3. Maurice Bruynooghe, Wim Vanhoof, and Michael Codish. Pos(T): Analyzing dependencies in typed logic programs. In Dines Bjørner, Manfred Broy, and Alexander V. Zamulin, editors, Perspectives of System Informatics, PSI 2001, Revised Papers, volume 2244 of LNCS, pages 406–420. Springer, 2001.

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

4. Francisco Bueno, Maria J. García de la Banda, Manuel V. Hermenegildo, Kim Marriott, German Puebla, and Peter J. Stuckey. A model for inter-module analysis and optimizing compilation. In Kung-Kiu Lau, editor, Logic Based Program Synthesis and Transformation, LOPSTR 2000, Selected Papers, volume 2042 of LNCS, pages 86–102. Springer-Verlag, 2000.

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

5. Michael Codish and Cohavit Taboch. A semantic basis for the termination analysis of logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 41(1):103–123, 1999.

   Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

6. Patrick Cousot and Nicholas Halbwachs. Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In Conference Record of the Fifth annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 84–96. ACM, 1978.

   Google Scholar 

7. Danny De Schreye, Kristof Verschaetse, and Maurice Bruynooghe. A framework for analysing the termination of definite logic programs with respect to call patterns. In ICOT Staff, editor, Proc. of the Fifth Generation Computer Systems, FGCS92, pages 481–488. IOS Press, 1992.

   Google Scholar 

8. Saumya K. Debray, Pedro López García, Manuel V. Hermenegildo, and Nai-Wei Lin. Estimating the Computational Cost of Logic Programs. In Baudouin Le Charlier, editor, Static Analysis, SAS’94, Proceedings, volume 864 of LNCS, pages 255–265. Springer Verlag, 1994. Invited Talk.

   Google Scholar 

9. Stefaan Decorte, Danny De Schreye, and Massimo Fabris. Exploiting the power of typed norms in automatic inference of interargument relations. Report CW 246, Department of Computer Science, K.U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, January 1997.

   Google Scholar 

10. Stefaan Decorte, Danny De Schreye, and Henk Vandecasteele. Constraint based automatic termination analysis of Logic Programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 21(6):1137–1195, November 1999.

    Google Scholar 

11. Stefaan Decorte, Danny de Schreye, and Massimo Fabris. Automatic inference of norms: A missing link in automatic termination analysis. In Logic Programming-Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, pages 420–436. MIT Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

12. N. Dershowitz, N. Lindenstrauss, Yehoshua Sagiv, and Alexander Serebrenik. A general framework for automatic termination analysis of logic programs. Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing, 12(1–-2):117–156, 2001.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

13. John Gallagher and German Puebla. Abstract interpretation over nondeterministic finite tree automata for set-based analysis of logic programs. In Shriram Krishnamurthi and C. R. Ramakrishnan, editors, Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, PADL 2002, Proceedings, volume 2257 of LNCS, pages 243–261. Springer Verlag, 2002.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

14. Samir Genaim, Michael Codish, John Gallagher, and Vitaly Lagoon. Combining norms to prove termination. In A. Cortesi, editor, Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpretation, Third Int. Workshop, VMCAI 2002, Revised Papers, volume 2294 of LNCS, pages 126–138. Springer-Verlag, 2002.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

15. Gerda Janssens and Maurice Bruynooghe. Deriving descriptions of possible values of program variables by means of abstract interpretation. J. Logic programming, 13(2&3):205–258, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

16. Vitaly Lagoon and Peter J. Stuckey. A framework for analysis of typed logic programs. In Herbert Kuchen and Kazunori Ueda, editors, Functional and Logic Programming, FLOPS 2001, Proceedings, volume 2024 of LNCS, pages 296–310. Springer, 2001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

17. Naomi Lindenstrauss and Yehoshua Sagiv. Automatic termination analysis of logic programs. In Lee Naish, editor, Logic Programming, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 63–77. MIT Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

18. P. Lopez, M. Hermenegildo, and S. Debray. A methodology for granularity-based control of parallelism in logic programs. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 21(4/5/6):715–734, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

19. Jonathan Martin, Andy King, and Paul Soper. Typed norms for typed logic programs. In John P. Gallagher, editor, Logic Programming Synthesis and Transformation, LOPSTR’96, Proceedings, volume 864 of LNCS, pages 224–238. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

20. Frédéric Mesnard and Ulrich Neumerkel. Applying static analysis techniques for inferring termination conditions of logic programs. In Patrick Cousot, editor, Static Analysis, SAS 2001, Proceedings, volume 2126 of LNCS, pages 93–110. Springer 2001, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

21. G. Puebla and M. Hermenegildo. Some issues in analysis and specialization of modular Ciao-Prolog programs. In M. Leuschel, editor, Proceedings of the Workshop on Optimization and Implementation of Declarative Languages, 1999. In Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Volume 30 Issue No. 2, Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

22. Danny De Schreye and Stefaan Decorte. Termination of logic programs: the never-ending story. The Journal of Logic Programming, 19 & 20:199–260, May 1994.

    Google Scholar 

23. Jan-Georg Smaus, Patricia M. Hill, and Andy King. Mode analysis domains for typed logic programs. In Annalisa Bossi, editor, Logic Programming Synthesis and Transformation, LOPSTR’99, Selected Papers, volume 1817 of LNCS, pages 82–101. Springer-Verlag, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

24. Zoltan Somogyi, Fergus Henderson, and Thomas Conway. The execution algorithm of Mercury, an efficient purely declarative logic programming language. Journal of Logic Programming, 29(1-–3):17–64, 1996.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

25. Jeffrey D. Ullman and Allen Van Gelder. Efficient tests for top-down termination of logical rules. JACM, 35(2):345–373, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

26. W. Vanhoof. Binding-time analysis by constraint solving: a modular and higher-order approach for Mercury. In M. Parigot and A. Voronkov, editors, Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning, LPAR2000, Proceedings, volume 1955 of LNAI, pages 399–416. Springer, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

27. Wim Vanhoof and Maurice Bruynooghe. Binding-time annotations without binding-time analysis. In Robert Nieuwenhuis and Andrei Voronkov, editors, Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, LPAR 2001, Proceedings, volume 2250 of LNCS, pages 707–722. Springer, 2001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references