The SDG is the most common data structure for program representation in the field of program slicing.
It was first proposed by Horwitz et al. \cite{HorwitzRB88} and, since then, many approaches to program slicing have based their models on it.
It builds upon the existing CFG, which represents the control flow between the instructions of a method. Then, it creates a PDG using the CFG's vertices and the dependencies computed from it.
The SDG is finally built from the assembly of the different method's PDGs, linking each method call to its corresponding definition.
Because each graph is built from the previous one, new statements and instructions can be added with to the CFG, without the need to alter the algorithm that converts each CFG to PDG and then to the final SDG.
The only modification possible is the redefinition of an already defined dependency or the addition of new kinds of dependence.
The seminal appearance of the SDG covers a simple imperative programming language, featuring procedures and basic instructions like calls, variable assignments, arithmetic and logic operators and conditional instructions (branches and loops).
\begin{definition}[Control Flow Graph \carlos{add original citation}]
Given a method $M$, which contains a list of statements $s =\{s_1, s_2, ...\}$, the \emph{control flow graph} of $M$ is a directed graph $G =\langle N, E \rangle$, where:
\begin{itemize}
\item$N = s \cup\{`\textnormal{Enter}', `\textnormal{Exit}'\}$: a set of nodes such that for each statement $s_i$ in $s$ there is a node in $N$ labelled with $s_i$ and two special nodes ``Enter'' and ``Exit'', which represent the beginning and end of the method, respectively.
\item$E$ is a set of edges of the form $e =\left(n_1, n_2\right) | n_1, n_2\in N$. $e \in E$ if and only if there is a possible execution of $M$ where $n_2$ is executed immediately after $n_1$.
Most algorithms, in order to generate the SDG, mandate the ``Enter'' node to be the only source and the ``Exit'' node to be the only sink in the graph.
In general, expressions are not evaluated when generating the CFG; so an \texttt{if} conditional instruction will two outgoing edges regardless the condition value being always true or false (e.g., \texttt{1 == 0}).
To build the PDG and then the SDG, there are two dependencies based directly on the CFG's structure: data and control dependence. First, though, we need to define the concept of postdominance in a graph, as it is necessary in the definition of control dependency:
Let $C =(N, E)$ be a CFG, and $n_e \in N$ the ``Exit'' node of $C$. $b \in N$\textit{postdominates}$a \in N$ if and only if $b$ is present on every possible sequence from $a$ to $n_e$.
From the previous definition, given that the ``Exit'' node is the only sink in the CFG, every node will have a path to it, so it follows that any node postdominates itself.
Let $C =(N, E)$ be a CFG. $b \in N$ is \textit{control dependent} on $a \in N$ ($a \ctrldep b$) if and only if $b$ postdominates one but not all of $\{(a, n) |~(a, n)\in E, n \in N\}$ ($a$'s successors).
$b \in N$ is \textit{data dependent} on $a \in N$ ($a \datadep b$) if and only if $a$ may define a variable $x$, $b$ may use $x$ and there exists in $C$ a sequence of edges from $a$ to $b$ where $x$ is not defined.
Data dependency was originally defined as flow dependency, and subcategorized into loop-carried and loop-independent flow-dependencies, but that distinction is no longer used to compute program slices with the SDG. It should be noted that variable definitions and uses can be computed for each statement independently, analysing the procedures called by it if necessary. The variables used and defined by a procedure call are those used and defined by its body.
With the data and control dependencies, the PDG may now be built by replacing the
Given a method $M$, composed of statements $S =\{s_1, s_2, ... s_n\}$ and its associated CFG $C =(N, E)$, the \textit{program dependence graph} (PDG) of $M$ is a directed graph $G =\langle N', E_c, E_d \rangle$, where:
\item$(a, b)\in E_c \iff a, b \in N' \wedge(a \ctrldep b \vee a =\textnormal{Enter}) ~ \wedge\not\exists c \in N' ~.~ a \ctrldep c \wedge c \ctrldep b$ (\textit{control edges})
\item$(a, b)\in E_d \iff a, b \in N' \wedge a \datadep b$ (\textit{data edges})
Regarding the graphical representation of the PDG, the most common one is a tree-like structure based on the control edges, and nodes sorted left to right according to their position on the original program. Data edges do not affect the structure, so that the graph is easily readable.
Given a program $P$, composed of a set of methods $M =\{m_0 ... m_n\}$ and their associated PDGs ---each method $m_i$ has a $PDG^i =\langle N^i, E_c^i, E_d^i \rangle$.
The \textit{system dependence graph} (SDG) of $P$ is a graph $G =\langle N, E_c, E_d, E_{call}\rangle$ where:
\begin{enumerate}
\item$N =\bigcup_{i=0}^n N^i$
\item$E_c =\bigcup_{i=0}^n E_c^i$
\item$E_d =\bigcup_{i=0}^n E_d^i$
\item$(a, b)\in E_{call}$ if and only if $a$ is a statement that contains a call and $b$ is a method ``Enter'' node of the function or method called by $a$. $(a, b)$ is a \textit{call edge}.
% These will be defined later when adding function calls.
% \item $E_{in}$ (\textit{parameter-input} or \textit{param-in edges})
% \item $E_{out}$ (\textit{parameter-output} or \textit{param-out edges})
Regarding call edges, in programming languages with ambiguous method calls (those that have polymorphism or pointers), there may exist multiple outgoing call edges from a statement with a single method call.
To avoid confusion, the ``Enter'' nodes of each method are relabelled with their method's name.
Consider the program shown on the left side of Figure~\ref{fig:simple-sdg-code}, where two procedures in a simple imperative language are shown. The CFG that corresponds to each procedure is shown on the right side.
Then, the nodes of each CFG are rearranged, according to the control and data dependencies, to create the corresponding PDGs. Both are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:simple-sdg}, each bounded by a rectangle.
Finally, the two graphs are connected with a single call edge to form the SDG.
\carlos{Vocabulary: when is appropriate the use of method, function and procedure????}\sergio{buena pregunta, yo creo que es jerarquico, method incluye function y procedure y los dos ultimos son disjuntos entre si no?}\josep{No. metodo implica orientacion a objetos. si estas hablando de un lenguaje en particular (p.e., Java), entonces debes usar el vocabulario de ese lenguaje (p.e., method). Si hablas en general y quieres usar una palabra que subsuma a todos, yo he visto dos maneras de hacerlo: (1) usar routine (aunque podrias usar otra palabra, por ejemplo metodo) la primera vez y ponerle una footnote diciendo que en el resto del articulo usamos routine para referirnos a metodo/funcion/procedimiento/predicado. (2) Usar metodo/funcion/procedimiento/predicado así, separado por barras. En esta tesina parece mas apropiado hablar de metodo, y la primera vez poner una footnote que diga que hablaremos de métodos, pero todos los desarrollos son igualmente aplicables a funciones y procedimientos.}
In the original definition of the SDG, there was special handling of data dependencies when calling functions, as it was considered that parameters were passed by value, and global variables did not exist. \carlos{Name and cite paper that introduced it} solves this issue by splitting function calls and function \added{definitions} into multiple nodes. This proposal solved \josep{the problem}everything\sergio{lo resuelve todo?} related to parameter passing: by value, by reference, complex variables such as structs or objects and return values.
\item[CFG.] In each CFG, global variables read or modified and parameters are added to the label of the ``Enter'' node in assignments of the form $par = par_{in}$ for each parameter and $x = x_{in}$ for global variables. Similarly, global variables and parameters modified are added to the label of the ``Exit'' node as \added{assignments of the form}$x_{out}= x$. \added{From now on, we will refer to the described assignments as input and output information respectively.}\sergio{\{}The parameters are only passed back if the value set by the called method can be read by the callee\sergio{\} no entiendo a que se refiere esta frase}. Finally, in method calls the same values must be packed and unpacked: each statement containing a function called is relabeled to contain \added{its related} input (of the form $par_{in}=\textnormal{exp}$ for parameters or $x_{in}= x$ for global variables) and output (always of the form $x = x_{out}$) \added{information}. \sergio{no hay parameter\_out? asumo entonces que no hay paso por valor?}
\item[PDG.] Each node \added{augmented with input or output information}\deleted{modified} in the CFG is \added{now} split into multiple nodes: the original \deleted{label}\added{node}\added{(Enter, Exit or function call)} is the main node and each assignment \added{contained in the input and output information} is represented as a new node, which is control--dependent on the main one. Visually, \added{new nodes coming from the input information}\deleted{input is}\added{are} placed on the left and \added{the ones coming from the output information}\deleted{output} on the right; with parameters sorted accordingly.
2019-12-06 17:45:09 +01:00
\item[SDG.] Three kinds of edges are introduced: parameter input (param--in), parameter output (param--out) and summary edges. Parameter input edges are placed between each method call's input node and the corresponding method definition input node. Parameter output edges are placed between each method definition's output node and the corresponding method call output node. Summary edges are placed between the input and output nodes of a method call, according to the dependencies inside the method definition: if there is a path from an input node to an output node, that shows a dependence and a summary method is placed in all method calls between those two nodes.\sergio{Tengo la sensacion de que la explicacion de que es un summary llega algo tarde y tal vez deberia estar en alguna definicion previa. Que opine Josep que piensa}\josep{Efectivamente. Llega tarde. No pueden definirse estas dependencias despues de definir el SDG, porque entonces lo que has definido en la definicion formal no es un SDG (solo una parte de el) y cuando hables de SDG a partir de ahora todo estara incompleto. Las definiciones son sagradas, así que hay dos soluciones: (1) explicar estos tres arcos antes de la definicion de SDG para poder definirlos formalmente en la definicion de SDG, o (2) retrasar la definiucion formal de SDG hasta aqui (para poder incluirlos). O cualquier otra cosa que haga que el SDG esté bien definido}
Note: \deleted{parameter input and output}\added{param-in and param-out} edges are separated because the traversal algorithm traverses them only sometimes (the output edges are excluded in the first pass and the input edges in the second).\sergio{delicado mencionar lo de las pasadas sin haber hablado antes de nada del algoritmo de slicing, a los que no sepan de slicing se les quedara el ojete frio aqui. Plantearse quitar esta nota.}\josep{Esta nota retrasala hasta que hables del algoritmo de slicing. En ese momento puedes decir que precisamente para que hayan dos pasadas se distingue entre parameter-ín y paramneter-out. Alli tendrá sentido y será aclaratorio. Aquí es confusorio. ;-)}
Let it be \josep{Excelente cancion de los beatles. Buenísima. Pero mejor empieza así: Let $f(x, y)$ be a function with... ;-)} a function $f(x, y)$ with two integer parameters \added{which\josep{that} modifies the argument passed in its second parameter}, and a call $f(a + b, c)$, with parameters passed by reference if possible. The label of the method call node in the CFG would be ``\texttt{x\_in = a + b, y\_in = c, f(a + b, c)\josep{???}, c = y\_out}''; method $f$ would have \texttt{x = x\_in, y = y\_in} in the ``Enter'' node and \texttt{y\_out = y} in the ``Exit'' node. The relevant section of the SDG would be: \josep{Todo este parrafo y la figura que sigue no se entienden. Hay que reescribirlo y explicarlo más detenidamente, paso a paso. Se supone que este es el ejmplo de la sección. El que va a aclarar las dudas de qué es $x_in$, etc. y de cómo funciona el SDG. Sin embargo, más que aclarar, lía (a uno que no sepa de slicing no le aclara nada). De hecho, para que se entendiera bien, una vez has construido el grafo, estaría bien continuar un poco el ejemplo explicando como las dependencias hacen que lo que hay dentro del método llamado depende (siguiendo los arcos) de lo que hay en el método llamador (o al menos de los parámetros de la llamada). Esto requiere un poco de texto explicativo.}
\sergio{Esta figura molaria mas evolutiva si diera tiempo, asi seria casi autoexplicativa: CFG $\rightarrow$ PDG $\rightarrow$ SDG. La actual seria el SDG, las otras tendrian poco mas que un nodo y una etiqueta.}
An alternative approach is to represent the instruction as an edge, not a vertex, connecting the previous statement with the next to be executed. \sergio{Juntaria las 2 propuestas anteriores (naive y alternative) en 1 frase, no las separaria, porque despues de leer la primera ya me he mosqueado porque no deciamos ni quien la hacia ni por que no era util.}
Both of these approaches fail to generate a control dependence from the unconditional jump, as the definition of control dependence (see definition~\ref{def:ctrl-dep}) requires a vertex to have more than one successor for it to be possible to be a source of control dependence.
dependencies, which is the most widely--used solution \cite{BalH93}.
The most popular approach was proposed by Ball and Horwitz~\cite{BalH93}, classifying instructions into three separate categories:
\begin{description}
2019-12-06 20:27:12 +01:00
\item[Statement.] Any instruction that is not a conditional or unconditional jump. \josep{\deleted{It has one outgoing edge in the CFG, to the next instruction that follows it in the program.}\added{Those nodes that represent an statement in the CFG have one outgoing edge pointing to the next instruction that follows it in the program.}}
\item[Predicate.] Any conditional jump instruction, such as \texttt{while}, \texttt{until}, \texttt{do-while}, \texttt{if}, etc. \josep{\deleted{It has two outgoing edges, labeled \textit{true} and \textit{false}; leading to the corresponding instructions.}\added{In the CFG, those nodes representing predicates have two outgoing edges, labeled \textit{true} and \textit{false}, leading to the corresponding instructions.}}
\item[Pseudo--predicates.] Unconditional jumps (e.g. \texttt{break}, \texttt{goto}, \texttt{continue}, \texttt{return}); are like predicates, with the difference that the outgoing edge labeled \textit{false} is marked as non--executable\josep{---because there is no possible execution where such edge would be possible,\deleted{, and there is no possible execution where such edge would be possible,} according to the definition of the CFG (see Definition~\ref{def:cfg})---}. Originally the edges had a specific reasoning backing them up: the \textit{true} edge leads to the jump's destination and the \textit{false} one, to the instruction that would be executed if the unconditional jump was removed, or converted into a \texttt{no op}\sergio{no op o no-op?} (a blank operation that performs no change to the program's state). \sergio{\{}This specific behavior is used with unconditional jumps, but no longer applies to pseudo--predicates, as more instructions have used this category as means of ``artificially'' \carlos{bad word choice} generating control dependencies.\sergio{\}No entrar en este jardin, cuando se definio esto no se contemplaba la creacion de nodos artificiales. -Quita el originally, ahora es originally.}
\carlos{Pseudo--statements now have been introduced and are used to generate all control edges (for now just the Enter method to the Exit).}\josep{No entiendo este CCC}
As a consequence of this classification, every instruction after an unconditional jump $j$ is control--dependent (either directly or indirectly) on $j$ and the structure containing it (\josep{a predicate such as }a conditional statement or a loop), as can be seen in the following example.
\begin{example}[Control dependencies generated by unconditional instructions]
\label{exa:unconditional}
2019-12-06 22:28:44 +01:00
Figure~\ref{fig:break-graphs} showcases a small program with a \texttt{break} statement, its CFG and PDG with a slice in grey\josep{No hables aún del slice. Primero presenta el programa, luego los grafos, luego el CS y finalmente el slice}. The slicing criterion (line 5, variable $a$) is control dependent on both the unconditional jump and its surrounding conditional instruction (both on line 4\josep{ponlos en lineas diferentes})\josep{. Therefore, the slice (all nodes in grey) includes the conditional jump and also the conditional exception. Note however that...}; even though it is not necessary to include it\sergio{a quien se refiere este it?} (in the context of weak slicing).
Note: the ``Enter'' node $S$ is also categorized as a pseudo--statement, with the \textit{false} edge connected to the ``Exit'' node, therefore generating a dependence from $S$ to all the nodes inside the method. This removes the need to handle $S$ with a special case when converting a CFG to a PDG, but lowers the explainability of non--executable edges as leading to the ``instruction that would be executed if the node was absent or a no--op''.
The original paper\josep{que original paper? parece que hablas de alguno que hayas hablado antes, pero el lector ya no se acuerda. Empieza de otra manera...}~\cite{BalH93} does prove its completeness, but disproves its correctness by providing a counter--example similar to example~\ref{exa:nested-unconditional}. This proof affects both weak and strong slicing, so improvements can be made on this proposal. The authors postulate that a more correct approach would be achievable if the slice's restriction of being a subset of instructions were lifted.
\josep{Esta frase es dificil de leer. No se entiende hasta leerla dos o tres veces.}In the case of nested unconditional jumps where both jump to the same destination, only one of them (the out--most one) is needed \josep{El lector no tiene contexto para saber de que hablas. Mejor empieza al reves: Consider the program in Figure~\ref{fig:nested-unconditional} where we can observe two nested unconditional jumps in lines X and Y. If we slice this program using the dependencies computed according to \cite{} then we compute the slice in light blue. Nevertheless, the minimal slice is composed of the nodes in grey [NOTA: yo no veo los colores. Arreglar la frase si no coincide con los colores]. This means that the slice computed includes unnecessary code (lines 3 and 5 are included unnecessarily). This problem is explained in depth and a solution proposed in Section~\ref{}}. Figure~\ref{fig:nested-unconditional} showcases the problem, with the minimal slice \carlos{have not defined this yet} in grey, and the algorithmically computed slice in light blue. Specifically, lines 3 and 5 are included unnecessarily.
\sergio{Creo que aun no hemos dicho que nuestro target language es Java, creo que ahora seria un buen momento.}
Exception handling was first tackled in the context of Java program slicing by Sinha et al. \cite{SinH98}, with later contributions by Allen and Horwitz~\cite{AllH03}. There exist contributions for other programming languages, which will be explored later (chapter~\ref{cha:state-art}) \deleted{and other small contributions}. \sergio{Tal vez cambiaria el orden de estas frases para ir de lo general a lo concreto, diria primero que hay muchas contribuciones que veremos en el chapter~\ref{cha:state-art} y luego que nos vamos a centrar en los planteamientos que abordan el problema para Java, donde las propuestas con mas peso son: tal y tal.} The following section will explain the treatment of the different elements of exception handling in Java program slicing.
As seen in section~\ref{sec:intro-exception}, exception handling in Java adds
two constructs: \texttt{throw} and \texttt{try-catch}. Structurally, the
first one resembles an unconditional control flow statement carrying a value ---like \texttt{return} statements--- but its destination is not fixed, as it depends on the dynamic typing of the value.
If there is a compatible \texttt{catch} block, execution will continue inside it, otherwise the method exits with the \deleted{corresponding value as the }error \added{as returned value}.
The same process is repeated in the method that called the current one, until either the call stack is emptied or the exception is successfully caught.
\deleted{If}\added{Eventually, in case} the exception is not caught \deleted{at all}\added{by any stacked method}, the program exits with an error ---except in multi--threaded programs, in which case the corresponding thread is terminated.
The \texttt{try-catch} statement can be compared to a \texttt{switch} which compares types (with \texttt{instanceof}) instead of constants (with \texttt{==} and \texttt{Object\#equals(Object)}\sergio{esta notacion es obligatoria o podemos decir ``... and the \texttt{equals} operands"?}). Both structures require special handling to place the proper dependencies, so that slices are complete and as correct as \deleted{can be}\added{possible}.
unconditional jump with a value attached and a switch to an ``exception mode'', in which the statement's execution order is disregarded. The first one has been extensively covered and solved; as it is equivalent to the \texttt{return} instruction, but the second one requires a small addition to the CFG: there must be an alternative control flow, where the path of the exception is shown. For now\sergio{esto suena muy espanyol no? So far?}, without including \texttt{try-catch} structures, any exception thrown will exit its method with an error; so a new ``Error end'' node is needed.\sergio{No me convence esta frase, a ver como os suena esto (aunque no estoy muy convencido de ello) $\rightarrow$ So far, without including \texttt{try-catch} structures, any exception thrown would activate the mentioned ``exception mode" and leave its method with an error state. Hence, in order to represent this behaviour, a different exit point (represented with a node called ``Error end") need to be defined.}\deleted{T}\added{Consecuently, t}he pre-existing ``Exit'' node is renamed \added{as} ``Normal end'', \deleted{but now the}\added{leaving the} CFG \deleted{has}\added{with} two distinct sink nodes; which is forbidden in most slicing algorithms. To solve that problem, a general ``Exit'' node is created, with both normal and \deleted{exit}\added{error} ends connected to it; making it the only sink in the graph.
In order to properly accommodate a method's output variables (global variables or parameters passed by reference that have been modified), variable unpacking is added to the ``Error exit'' node; same as the ``Exit''\sergio{Exit?Vaya cacao llevamos con esto xD} node in previous examples. This change constitutes an increase in precision, as now the outputted variables are differentiated\deleted{; f}\added{. F}or example\added{,} a slice which only requires the error exit may include less variable modifications than one which includes both.
This treatment of \texttt{throw} statements only modifies the structure of the CFG, without altering the other graphs, the traversal algorithm, or the basic definitions for control and data dependencies. That fact makes it easy to incorporate to any existing program slicer that follows the general model described. Example~\ref{exa:throw} showcases the new exit nodes and the treatment of the \texttt{throw}\sergio{ statement?} as if it were an unconditional jump whose destination is the ``Error exit''.
Consider the simple Java method on the \deleted{right}\added{left} of figure~\ref{fig:throw}; which performs a square root if the number is positive, throwing otherwise a \texttt{RuntimeError}. The CFG in the centre illustrates the treatment of \texttt{throw}, ``normal exit'' and ``error exit'' as pseudo--statements, and the PDG on the right describes the control dependencies generated from the \texttt{throw} statement to the following instructions and exit nodes.
It filters \added{each} exception by its type; letting those which do not match any of the catch blocks propagate to \deleted{another}\added{an external}\texttt{try-catch}\deleted{surrounding it}\added{block} or \deleted{outside the method,} to the previous \deleted{one}\added{method} in the call stack.
On top of that, the \texttt{finally} block helps programmers guarantee code execution. It can be used replacing or in conjunction with \texttt{catch} blocks.
The code placed inside a \texttt{finally} block is guaranteed to run if the \texttt{try} block has been entered.
This holds true whether the \texttt{try} block exits correctly, an exception is caught, an exception is left uncaught or an exception is caught and another one is thrown while handling it (within its \texttt{catch} block).
\carlos{This would be useful to explain that the new dependencies introduced by the non-executable edges are not ``normal'' control dependencies, but ``presence'' dependencies. Opposite to traditional control dependence, where $a \ctrldep b$ if and only if the number of times $b$ is executed is dependent on the \textit{execution} of $a$ (e.g. conditional blocks and loops); this new control dependencies exist if and only if the number of times $b$ is executed is dependent on the \textit{presence} or \textit{absence} of $a$; which introduces a meta-problem. In the case of exceptions, it is easy to grasp that the absence of a catch block alters the results of an execution. Same with unconditional jumps, the absence of breaks modifies the flow of the program, but its execution does not control anything. A differentiation seems appropriate, even if only as subcategories of control dependence: execution control dependence and presence control dependence.}
The main problem when including \texttt{try-catch} blocks in program slicing is that \texttt{catch} blocks are not always strictly necessary for the slice (less so for weak slices), but introduce new styles of control dependence \sergio{De esto se habla luego? de estos ``new styles"? si es asi acuerdate de referenciarlo forward diciendo donde. Me imagino que es lo que pone en tu comentario de la presence control dependence.}; which must be properly mapped to the SDG. The absence of \texttt{catch} blocks may also be a problem for compilation, as Java requires at least one \texttt{catch} or \texttt{finally} block to accompany each \texttt{try} block; though that could be fixed after generating the slice, if it is required that the slice be \sergio{be or to be?} executable.
A typical\sergio{La tipica o la de la propuesta de Horwitz? Si es la de Horwitz di que ellos lo hacen asi, que ya hemos dicho que es lo mas importante hasta la fecha en Java.} representation of the \texttt{try} block is as a pseudo-predicate, connected to the first statement inside it and to the instruction that follows the \texttt{try} block.
\carlos{This is not really a ``control'' dependency, could be replaced by the definition of structural dependence.}\sergio{Totalmente, pero para decir esto hay que definir la structural dependence, que imagino que estara en la seccion 4.}
As \textit{checked} exceptions must be declared explicitly, method declarations may be consulted to see if a method call may or may not throw any exceptions.
On this front, polymorphism and inheritance present no problem, as inherited methods must match the signature of the parent method ---including exceptions that may be thrown.
\deleted{If}\added{In case}\textit{unchecked} exceptions are also considered, method calls could be analysed to know which exceptions may be thrown, or the documentation \added{could} be checked automatically for the comment annotation \texttt{@throws} to know which ones \deleted{are thrown}\added{can be raised}.
\item[\texttt{throw} statements.] The least common, but most simple, as it is \deleted{treated as}\added{equivalent to}\sergio{no las tratamos, solo decimos cuales son} a
\texttt{throw} inside a method \sergio{Hemos explicado como se trata un ``throw inside un method"? O nos estamos refiriendo a una checked exception en una method call?}. The type of the exception may be obvious, as most \carlos{this is a weird claim to make without backup} exceptions are built and thrown in the same instruction; but it also may be hidden: e.g., \texttt{throw \added{(}(Exception) o\added{)}} where\sergio{por claridad, sino parece que la o forma parte de la frase}\texttt{o} is a variable of type Object.
\sergio{Este es el caso mas directo de excepcion, un throw a fuego en un try-catch. Yo tal vez lo pondria antes que las method calls.}
In general, most programs will not attempt to catch them, and can be excluded in order to simplify implicit unchecked exceptions (any instruction at any moment may throw an Error).
\sergio{Despues de leer las 4 propongo el que me parece el orden ideal de explicacion: (1) throw (2) implicit unchecked (3) method calls (asi puedes aprovechar que ya has hablado de las uncheked ahora mismo y el lector ya ha recordado que eran) (4) errors}
is treated as a predicate, with the true edge connected to the next instruction \deleted{were the statement
to execute without raising exceptions}\added{of the normal execution}; and the false edge connected to all the possible \texttt{catch} nodes which may be compatible with the exception thrown.
\deleted{The case of method calls that may throw exceptions is slightly different, as}\added{Unfortunately, when the exception source is a method call, there is an augmented behavour that make the representation slightly different, since} there may be variables to unpack, both in the case of a normal or erroneous exit. To that end, nodes containing method calls have an unlimited number of outgoing edges: one \deleted{to leads}\added{that points} to a node labelled ``normal return'', after which the variables produced by any normal exit of the method are unpacked; and all the others \added{point} to any possible catch that may catch the exception thrown. Each catch must then unpack the variables produced by the erroneous exits of the method.
The ``normal return'' node is itself a pseudo-statement; with the \textit{true} edge leading to the following instruction and \sergio{\{}the \textit{false} one to the first common instruction between all the paths of length $\ge1$ that start from the method call ---which translates to the instruction that follows the \texttt{try} block if all possible exceptions thrown by the method are caught or the ``Exit'' node if there are some left uncaught.\sergio{\}esta frase es larguisima, con aclaraciones en medio y no se entiende.}
Consider the \deleted{following }segment of Java code in figure~\ref{fig:try-catch}\added{ (left)}, which includes some statements \deleted{that do not use data}\added{without any data dependence} (X, Y and Z), and\added{a} method call to \texttt{f} that uses \texttt{x} and \texttt{y}, two global variables. \texttt{f} may throw an exception, so it has been placed inside a \texttt{try-catch} structure, with a statement in the \texttt{catch} that logs the \added{\texttt{error}}\added{token} when it occurs. Additionally, \added{consider the case that} when \texttt{f} exits \deleted{without an error}\added{normally}, only \texttt{x} is modified; but when an error occurs, only \texttt{y} is modified.
\deleted{Note how the pseudo-statements act to create control dependencies between the \textit{true} and \textit{false} edges, such as the ``normal return'', ``catch'', ``try''.}\added{As can be seen in the CFG shown in figure~\ref{fig:try-catch} (centre), the nodes ``normal return'', ``catch'' and ``try'' are considered as pseudo-statements, and their \textit{true} and \textit{false} edges (solid and dashed arrows respectively) are used to create control dependencies.} The statements contained after the function call, inside the \texttt{catch}\added{block,} and \added{inside} the \texttt{try} block\deleted{s} are respectively control dependent on the aforementioned nodes.
Finally, consider the statement \texttt{Z}; which is not dependent on any part of the \texttt{try-catch} block, as all exceptions that may be thrown are caught: it will execute regardless of the path taken inside the \texttt{try} block. \carlos{Consider critiquing the result, saying that despite the last sentence, statements can be removed (the catch) so that the dependencies are no longer the same.}
\caption{A simple example of the representation of \texttt{try-catch} structures and method calls that may throw exceptions. \josep{Pon quien es el CFG y quien el PDG. Por cierto, el arco del catch a la Z (rama false del catch) no es como los que se habian comentado. Es decir, no va a donde iria la ejecucion si el catch no estuviera.}}
\sergio{Mi aportacion aqui es que posiblemente tenemos que restringir la aproximacion del Chapter 4 diciendo que vamos a tratar solo checked exceptions y mencionar al final que las unchecked serian igual pero anyadiendo mas analisis y mas codigo al slice. Sino cada vez que contemos lo que hacemos vamos a tener que estar diciendo: "y para unchecked noseque..." todo el rato. Cuando presentes la solucion acota el problema y di que vamos a proponer una solucion para checked exceptions y que considera el caso en que no se capture lo que se lanza en el try catch (cosa que puede pasar en java). Eso ya es mejor que la solucion actual}
