Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 213

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Detecting conflicts between structure accesses

Larus, J. R., Hilfinger, P. N.·1988·ACM SIGPLAN Notices

Abstract

Two references to a record structure conflict if they access the same field and at least one modifies the location. Because structures can be connected by pointers, deciding if two statements conflict requires knowledge of the possible aliases for the locations that they access. This paper describes a dataflow computation that produces a conservative description of the aliases visible at any point in a program. The data structure that records aliases is an alias graph. It also labels instances of structures so that the objects referenced at different points in a program can be compared. This paper shows how alias graphs can be used to detect potential conflicts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/960116.53993

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 213

Metadata

Authors
Larus, J. R., & Hilfinger, P. N.
Venue
ACM SIGPLAN Notices
Published
1988-06
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
24-31
ISSN
  • 0362-1340 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-1160
OpenAlex
W1970061809
Cited by
213
References
0
FWCI
8.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detecting conflicts between structure accesses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/960116.53993
The paper
Larus, J. R., & Hilfinger, P. N. (1988). Detecting conflicts between structure accesses. ACM SIGPLAN Notices. https://doi.org/10.1145/960116.53993

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.