LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  May 2002

TEAM-ADA May 2002

Subject:

Re: common pattern versus an Ada limitation

From:

Randy Brukardt <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Randy Brukardt <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 17 May 2002 21:01:39 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (151 lines)

> > 2) Language Revision
> > --------------------
> > This issue naturally leads to the question: can the next language
> > revision for Ada provide the missing guarantee, assuring a match
> > in comparisons of subprogram access values that designate the same
> > subprogram?
>
> No. Over my dead body.

I suppose you want a detailed technical explanation? Sigh.

There are various reasons that the profile of a subprogram may be different
depending on context. If that is the case, taking 'Access may not just be
taking the address of the machine code for the subprogram. A wrapper of some
sort will need to be generated in order to make the profile of the access
type match up with the profile of the actual subprogram.

The usual technique is to create the wrapper (which is really just a
compiler-generated subprogram) at the point of the use of 'Access (or a
convenient nearby point). Thus, the 'Access value itself is the address of
the wrapper, not the address of the subprogram, and two 'Access usages that
are too far apart will end up with different values.

This is a real issue with compilers that support any kind of generic
sharing. The way that generic units are shared is that each subprogram in
the generic includes an additional, compiler-generated parameter to the data
and description of the particular instance that is being used. Of course,
the profile of the subprogram in an instance matches that of a similar
subprogram declared outside of the instance. So, while the logical profiles
match, the actual machine code is quite different. The compiler has to use a
wrapper to make the profiles match.

A quick example may make this clearer:

    type Proc_Access is access procedure;

    procedure Proc1;

    generic
       Cnst : in Integer;
    procedure GProc;

    procedure Proc2 is new GProc (10);
    procedure Proc3 is new GProc (20);


    V : Proc_Access;

    if <complex expr.> then
       V := Proc1'Access;
    else
       V := Proc2'Access;
    end if;

    ...
    V.all;

Assume GProc is a shared generic (meaning that there is only one instance of
the code for the body). In order for Proc2 and Proc3 to determine the value
of Cnst, it has to be passed to calls to GProc. (Usually, of course, there
are many parameters and private package data; the compiler will probably
pass a record of this stuff rather than one parameter for each item.) The
generated body for GProc would look something like:

    procedure GProc (~Cnst : in Integer) is ...

(where ~Cnst is a compiler-generated name).

The machine address of Proc2 and Proc3 is this body. If you wrote a call to
Proc2:

    Proc2;

the compiler would generate:

    GProc (10);

to pass the generic data.

Now, if you just used the machine address of the subprogram (GProc) when
taking 'Access, how would you know whether to add the extra parameter, and
what its value is? The solution is to create a wrapper subprogram to
'stand-in' for the real body.

    procedure ~Proc2 is
    begin
        GProc (10);
    end ~Proc2;

(This, by the way, is the reason why you can't take 'Access in a generic
body for a type declared outside of the generic. In that case, there would
be no way to generate a thunk that could access the generic parameter data,
because the only way to access that data is to pass it in as a parameter --
but that would change the profile and defeat the purpose.)


One could imagine avoiding the 'different value' problem by building only
one such thunk for the entire program. However, consider separate
compilation: the only 'Access for a given subprogram might be buried in a
separate subprogram somewhere. How is the compiler going to figure out that
one exists?

An alternative would be to generate appropriate ones for every subprogram in
every generic instantiation. But 'Access is rare, so most of these would be
unused. Plus, it would have to be done for every possible access profile.
Even if the compiler has good code elimination, the cost of doing that
elimination would have a substantial drag on linking performance. (For
Janus/Ada, it probably would lengthen the linking times by 4-16 times, as
code elimination is quadratic in number of subprograms in the program.)

Another alternative would to use a "fat pointer" for access to subprograms
that would be self-describing. That is, it would contain information about
needed extra parameters and their values. However, such a thing would not be
compatible with "C", so the problem would reappear with Convention (C)
parameters.

Certainly, we could get rid of the rule by disallowing the use of 'Access on
subprograms that come from generic instances, but that is a far worse wart
on the language than the current rule. We want subprograms in generics to be
as 'normal' as possible.

Janus/Ada uses universal sharing (meaning all generics are shared), but the
problem occurs for any sort of sharing. Certainly, if full program analysis
is needed before any generic sharing can occur, then there will be no
generic sharing.

The 'dead body' part comes from my reaction to any proposal to eliminate
generic sharing (which your suggestion is, even if you don't know it). This
is essentially the same as eliminating Janus/Ada as an Ada compiler, since
the cost to change from universal generic sharing to template generics is
prohibitive. Moreover, it would have little value to the users of Janus/Ada
(they would get a whole new set of bugs to deal with, and their programs
would have very different size and performance characteristics).



The best solution to your problem is a coding standard requiring a single
'Access for each subprogram in your program. To be effective, this would
have to be checked with a tool. As a practical matter, you won't see any
wrappers with library-level subprograms that aren't in generic units, so the
pattern usually works. (Which may be the most dangerous thing in this case.)

But the *really* best solution is an OOP-based solution. This is extensible
and type-safe and doesn't require unsafe compares and doesn't even need
(visible) access types. Admittedly, there is a bit more work up front, but I
think access types should avoided unless there is really dynamic allocation
(which can't happen with subprograms in Ada). One of the really nice things
about Ada 95 is that you can do useful OOP without using any access types.

              Randy Brukardt.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager