Talk:Abstract interpretation

message: The tools added by 212.82.36.34 to this page refer to the commercial products of one (or two?) compiler vendor(s?).  People in the program analysis research community do not consider these tools to be "standards" of any kind; there are dozens or hundreds of little compiler vendors in the world; these particular links are of little more encyclopedic interest than, say, your neighborhood plumber's web site.  Hence, linking them up here may not be appropriate.  At least, they should be clearly labeled as one set of commercial tools among many.  See also similar edit to Optimization (computer science). k.lee 06:59, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Be they spam or not, if they're obscure products, they shouldn't be listed unless those famous ones are listed as well. --Menchi 06:40, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
----
Update: It appears that all of the contributions made on August 14 by  212.82.36.34 are links to commercial products by the same company, AbsInt.  See, e.g., the edit to dinosaur --- in this case the page that it links to isn't even very informative: you have to click special links to get any graph that actually gives you any information, and the only complete version of the linked graph is in formats that most users will not be able to view.
Additionally, 212.82.36.34 is refusing reverse DNS lookups, but from here www.aisee.com is resolving 212.82.32.59, which is on the same subnet.  I now strongly suspect that this is spam, or at least a well-meaning but misguided individual affiliated with this company. k.lee 07:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: commercial products

message: There is a problem with this definition: the function γ is not defined or quantified over, so we have no idea what it is.  From notation used in the preceding paragraph, I would presume it's a concretization function, but we don't know.
: Let L1, L2, L′1 and L′2 be ordered sets. The concrete semantics f is a monotonic function from L1 to L2. A function f′ from L′1 to L′2 is said to be a valid abstraction of f if for all x′ in L′1, (f ∘ γ)(x′) ≤ (γ ∘ f′)(x′).
--saf 06:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The composition is correct, the definition is consistent. But indeed it lacks in clarity. Tomdo08 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

text: ... also the definition of valid abstraction is suspiciously narrow: It seems to only be good for bounding. Tomdo08 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "valid abstraction" 

message: I sent an email to GrammaTech and they told me that CodeSonar does not use AI. So I removed it from the list of tools.--Borishollas (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CodeSonar 

message: The section "Tools" was deleted by . I agree that is it a spam magnet, but completely deleting it is an inadequately hard measure. 
As a compromise, I suggest to allow only tools that
# have an own wikipedia article (in particular: no external links), and
# demonstrably employ abstract interpretation (in particular: no "Unsound tools"; they might belong at static program analysis, but not here).
In order to establish this as a strictly enforced policy, a wide consensus should be established here. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tools section