Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Carl Christian Frederiksen
dblp:90/4795
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Compilers and program optimization · 67% Program verification · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Compilers and program optimization
compiler correctness |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic · POPL 2002 |
Compilers and program optimization › compiler correctness
compiler optimization correctness |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic · POPL 2002 |
Program verification
temporal logic verification |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic · POPL 2002 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
temporal logic · 0.0rewrite rules · 0.0data flow analysis · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logicabstractMany classical compiler optimizations can be elegantly expressed using rewrite rules of form: I ⇒ I ′ if φ , where I , I ′ are intermediate language instructions and φ is a property expressed in a temporal logic suitable for describing program data flow. Its reading: If the current program π contains an instruction of form I at some control point p , and if flow condition φ is satisfied at p , then replace I by I ′.The purpose of this paper is to show how such transformations may be proven correct. Our methodology is illustrated by three familiar optimizations, dead code elimination, constant folding and code motion. The meaning of correctness is that for any program π, if Rewrite (π, π′, p , I ⇒ I ′ if φ) then [[π]] = [[π′]], i.e. π and π′ have exactly the same semantics. David Lacey, Neil D. Jones, Eric Van Wyk, Carl Christian Frederiksen |
POPL | 4 |