  Instrumenting programs for performing run-time checking of properties, such
as regular shapes, is a common and useful technique that helps programmers
detect incorrect program behaviors. This is specially true in dynamic languages
such as Prolog. However, such run-time checks inevitably introduce run-time
overhead (in execution time, memory, energy, etc.). Several approaches have
been proposed for reducing such overhead, such as eliminating the checks that
can statically be proved to always succeed, and/or optimizing the way in which
the (remaining) checks are performed. However, there are cases in which it is
not possible to remove all checks statically (e.g., open libraries which must
check their interfaces, complex properties, unknown code, etc.) and in which,
even after optimizations, these remaining checks still may introduce an
unacceptable level of overhead. It is thus important for programmers to be able
to determine the additional cost due to the run-time checks and compare it to
some notion of admissible cost. The common practice used for estimating
run-time checking overhead is profiling, which is not exhaustive by nature.
Instead, we propose a method that uses static analysis to estimate such
overhead, with the advantage that the estimations are functions parameterized
by input data sizes. Unlike profiling, this approach can provide guarantees for
all possible execution traces, and allows assessing how the overhead grows as
the size of the input grows. Our method also extends an existing assertion
verification framework to express "admissible" overheads, and statically and
automatically checks whether the instrumented program conforms with such
specifications. Finally, we present an experimental evaluation of our approach
that suggests that our method is feasible and promising.
