1. SOOT By Joe Palmer Information taken from http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/soot/tutorial/pldi03/tutorial.pdf

2. General Overview Developed by Sable Research Group out of McGill University in 1996-1997 Used to optimize Java Bytecode 4 source languages 4 intermediate representations used

3. Sources Languages Primarily takes Java Source as its input Can also take:  SML  Scheme  Eiffel

4. I.R.’s Baf: Streamlined, stack-based representation of bytecode Abstracts type dependent variations of expressions into a single expression Jimple: Stack-less, typed, 3-Address representation of bytecode Mix between java source and java bytecode Linearization of a single expression into 3 separate statements  Only refers to 3 local vars or conts at once Only 15 jimple instructions are used  Compared to 200 possible instructions in java bytecode! Shimple: SSA-form version of Jimple Each local var has a single static point of definition (never reassign) Uses Phi-Nodes for control flow Grimp: Similar to Jimple but allows trees of expressions together with a representation of a “new” operator Expressions are “aggregated” main IR used!!

5. Phases of the Optimization

6. Analysis Tested using 8 SPECjvm98 benchmarks running on JDK 1.2  Showed 8% improvement when optimized bytecode is run using an interpreter  21% improvement when optimized bytecode is run using a JIT compiler Used in research with traditional compiler analyses, analyses for software engineering, analysis for distributed programs, and software verification  Ptolemy Project  Bandera  Canvas Project

7. Strengths and Future Enhancements Used as a common infrastructure with which researchers could compare common analyses Enhancements coming: Attribute management Attribute legends Improved visual attributes in source Interactive CFGs Growable graphical callgraph Making conversion from Java to Jimple more stable and complete