We show that a non-duplicating transformation into continuation-passing style (CPS) has no effect on control-flow analysis, a positive effect on binding-time analysis for traditional partial evaluation, and no effect on binding-time analysis for continuation-based partial evaluation: a monovariant control-flow analysis yields equivalent results on a direct-style program and on its CPS counterpart, a monovariant binding-time analysis yields less precise results on a direct-style program than on its CPS counterpart, and an enhanced monovariant binding-time analysis yields equivalent results on a direct-style program and on its CPS counterpart. Our proof technique amounts to constructing the CPS counterpart of flow information and of binding times.<br /> <br />Our results formalize and confirm a folklore theorem about traditional binding-time analysis, namely that CPS has a positive effect on binding times. What may be more surprising is that the benefit does not arise from a standard refinement of program analysis, as, for instance, duplicating continuations.<br /> <br />The present study is symptomatic of an unsettling property of program analyses: their quality is unpredictably vulnerable to syntactic accidents in source programs, i.e., to the way these programs are written. More reliable program analyses require a better understanding of the effect of syntactic change.
CFA2: a Context-Free Approach to Control-Flow Analysis
