<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Resolving and Exploiting the $k$-CFA Paradox · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1311.4231/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1311.4231/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Resolving and Exploiting the $k$-CFA Paradox — mentioned by DannyBee</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43357043</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1311.4231:43357043</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:41:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, the time complexity of m-cfa is polynomial. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.4231 I&amp;#x27;ll borrow a few choice pieces from the paper to try to explain why. The main difference is that: k-cfa is sensitive to the last k calls. m-cfa is sensitive to the top m stack frames. This turns out not equivalent: with k=1 vs m=1: a program where main calls a calls b. in k-cfa, the context will be the call to b. in m-cfa, the context will be the call to a. How m-cfa came about and why it works: k-CFA is EXPTIME-complete (so no polynomial algorithm can exist). However, it was observed that there are plenty…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1311.4231/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
