Control dependency is a situation in which a program instruction executes if the previous instruction evaluates in a way that allows its execution.
An instruction B has a control dependency on a preceding instruction A if the outcome of A determines whether B should be executed or not. In the following example, the instruction S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} has a control dependency on instruction S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} . However, S 3 {\displaystyle S_{3}} does not depend on S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} because S 3 {\displaystyle S_{3}} is always executed irrespective of the outcome of S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} .
S1. if (a == b) S2. a = a + b S3. b = a + bIntuitively, there is control dependence between two statements A and B if
- B could be possibly executed after A
- The outcome of the execution of A will determine whether B will be executed or not.
A typical example is that there are control dependences between the condition part of an if statement and the statements in its true/false bodies.
A formal definition of control dependence can be presented as follows:
A statement S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} is said to be control dependent on another statement S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} iff
- there exists a path P {\displaystyle P} from S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} to S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} such that every statement S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} ≠ S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} within P {\displaystyle P} will be followed by S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} in each possible path to the end of the program and
- S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} will not necessarily be followed by S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} , i.e. there is an execution path from S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} to the end of the program that does not go through S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} .
Expressed with the help of (post-)dominance the two conditions are equivalent to
- S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} post-dominates all S i {\displaystyle S_{i}}
- S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} does not post-dominate S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}}
Construction of control dependences
Control dependences are essentially the dominance frontier in the reverse graph of the control-flow graph (CFG).1 Thus, one way of constructing them, would be to construct the post-dominance frontier of the CFG, and then reversing it to obtain a control dependence graph.
The following is a pseudo-code for constructing the post-dominance frontier:
for each X in a bottom-up traversal of the post-dominator tree do: PostDominanceFrontier(X) ← ∅ for each Y ∈ Predecessors(X) do: if immediatePostDominator(Y) ≠ X: then PostDominanceFrontier(X) ← PostDominanceFrontier(X) ∪ {Y} done for each Z ∈ Children(X) do: for each Y ∈ PostDominanceFrontier(Z) do: if immediatePostDominator(Y) ≠ X: then PostDominanceFrontier(X) ← PostDominanceFrontier(X) ∪ {Y} done done doneHere, Children(X) is the set of nodes in the CFG that are immediately post-dominated by X, and Predecessors(X) are the set of nodes in the CFG that directly precede X in the CFG. Note that node X shall be processed only after all its Children have been processed. Once the post-dominance frontier map is computed, reversing it will result in a map from the nodes in the CFG to the nodes that have a control dependence on them.
See also
References
Cytron, R.; Ferrante, J.; Rosen, B. K.; Wegman, M. N.; Zadeck, F. K. (1989-01-01). "An efficient method of computing static single assignment form". Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL '89. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 25–35. doi:10.1145/75277.75280. ISBN 0897912942. S2CID 8301431. 0897912942 ↩