Mike Schaeffer's Weblog
Mon, 21 Jan 2008
Another one along the lines of My
last post. I tried to compile this source file today, using the
compiler in my little Lisp:
But, the compiler is slightly different.... it isolates the program being compiled from the compiler itself. This is done to keep redefinitions that might break the currently running compiler from doing just that. Redefinitions by the compiled program are only supposed to be visible to the compiled program. Since the above program never itself invokes values, it should never hit the call to %panic... except that it does.
What's happening here lies in the processing of the second definition. The definition itself is transformed a couple times by macroexpansion, first to this:
I don't have a unit test for the user/compiler seperation logic, so I thought when I started this blog post I was going to say something like: 'look, something else fundamentally broken, and without a test case'. That's interesting, but if you need convincing to write unit tests, you're probably already lost. What I actually learned while researching this post is a bit more subtle: it's a fundamental problem, but it's more about the design than the code itself. While the design I have for user/compiler seperation seems to work most of the time, it's not adequate to solve this kind of problem. I'm not yet exactly sure what the solution is, but it won't necessarily involve a missing unit test.
reddit this! Digg Me!
(define (values . args) (%panic "roh roh")) (define (test x) (+ x 1))I got the following result:
d:\test>vcsh -c test.scm ;;;; VCSH, Debug Build (SCAN 0.99 - Dec 17 2007 16:47:30) ; Info: Loading Internal File: fasl-compiler ; Info: Package 'fasl-compiler' created ; Info: Loading Internal File: fasl-write ; Info: Package 'fasl-write' created ; Info: Loading Internal File: fasl-compiler-run ; Info: Package 'fasl-compiler-run' created ; Info: stack limit disabled! Fatal Error: roh roh @ (error.cpp:168)Needless to say, fatal errors still aren't any good. However, this one is a bit more interesting than a simple type checking problem. The function %panic is the internal function used to signal fatal errors from Lisp code. The first definition above redefines values, the function to return multiple return values, so that it always panics with a fatal error. This is the kind of thing that, if done in a running environment, would break things almost immediately.
But, the compiler is slightly different.... it isolates the program being compiled from the compiler itself. This is done to keep redefinitions that might break the currently running compiler from doing just that. Redefinitions by the compiled program are only supposed to be visible to the compiled program. Since the above program never itself invokes values, it should never hit the call to %panic... except that it does.
What's happening here lies in the processing of the second definition. The definition itself is transformed a couple times by macroexpansion, first to this:
(%define test (named-lambda test (x) (+ x 1)))And then, basically, to this:
(%define test (%lambda ((name . test) (lambda-list x)) (x) (+ x 1)))The second macroexpansion step is the step that looks for optional arguments, and the internal function that parses lambda lists for optional arguments returns three values using values. This invocation of values happens in the environment of the program being compiled, so it hits the new %panic-invoking definition and the whole show grinds to a halt. The 'easy' fix, ensuring that macro expansion is isolated from potentially harmful redefinitions, won't work. Macro expansion has to happen in the user environment, so that macros can see function definitions that they might rely upon.
I don't have a unit test for the user/compiler seperation logic, so I thought when I started this blog post I was going to say something like: 'look, something else fundamentally broken, and without a test case'. That's interesting, but if you need convincing to write unit tests, you're probably already lost. What I actually learned while researching this post is a bit more subtle: it's a fundamental problem, but it's more about the design than the code itself. While the design I have for user/compiler seperation seems to work most of the time, it's not adequate to solve this kind of problem. I'm not yet exactly sure what the solution is, but it won't necessarily involve a missing unit test.
reddit this! Digg Me!
[/tech/programming] permanent link
Sun, 20 Jan 2008
The other day, I had the following (abbreviated) dialog with my little
Scheme interpreter:
Needless to say, 'Fatal errors' aren't good things, and fatal errors in intern!, a core function, are even worse. Without going into too many details, the first call should be returning successfully, and the second should be throwing a runtime type check error. However, the implementation of intern! wasn't checking argument types and passing invalid arguments into lower layers of the interpreter's oblist (symbol table) code, which died with an assertation failure.
To put this in perspective, my implentation of intern! is about five years old, and something that I thought to be a fairly reliable piece of code. At the very least, I didn't think it was susceptable to something as simple as a type checking error that would crash the entire interpreter. Of course, when I looked at my test suite, there wasn't a set of tests for intern!. That might have something to do with it, don't you think?
Here are the morals I'm taking from this little story:
reddit this! Digg Me!
scheme> (intern! 'xyzzy2 (find-package "keyword")) ; Fatal Error: Assertation Failed: STRINGP(pname) @ (oblist.cpp:451) c:\vcalc>vcsh.exe scheme> (intern! 12) ; Fatal Error: Assertation Failed: STRINGP(sym_name) @ (oblist.cpp:269) c:\vcalc>
Needless to say, 'Fatal errors' aren't good things, and fatal errors in intern!, a core function, are even worse. Without going into too many details, the first call should be returning successfully, and the second should be throwing a runtime type check error. However, the implementation of intern! wasn't checking argument types and passing invalid arguments into lower layers of the interpreter's oblist (symbol table) code, which died with an assertation failure.
To put this in perspective, my implentation of intern! is about five years old, and something that I thought to be a fairly reliable piece of code. At the very least, I didn't think it was susceptable to something as simple as a type checking error that would crash the entire interpreter. Of course, when I looked at my test suite, there wasn't a set of tests for intern!. That might have something to do with it, don't you think?
Here are the morals I'm taking from this little story:
reddit this! Digg Me!
[/tech/programming] permanent link
Thu, 17 Jan 2008
I don't usually write posts for the sole purpose of linking to other
posts, but this is an exception. This is
brilliant. What it is is the USDA's
Food Pyramidbut adapted to how programmers should spend their time.
My one complaint is that it's way too focused on coding. My experience
has been that it really pays to spend time on design work and learning to
how to better interact with others, be they clients or team-mates. If you
can design your way out of a rewrite, or work with your client to recast
requirements to save complexity, it can be far more cost effective than
even the best raw code.
reddit this! Digg Me!
reddit this! Digg Me!
[/tech/programming] permanent link
Sat, 12 Jan 2008
Last June, I wrote a bit
on my experiences with the Cingular 2125 Windows Smartphone. After more than a year, the
phone has been a good choice, but there have been several suprises, for both the good and
the bad.
reddit this! Digg Me!
reddit this! Digg Me!
[/tech/products] permanent link
Wed, 09 Jan 2008
In my career, I've done a bit of switching back and forth between Emacs and various
IDE's. One of the IDE features I've come to depend on is quick access
to the compiler. Typically, IDE's make it possible to compile your
project with a keystroke, and then navigate from error to error at the
press of a key. It's easy to recreate this in Emacs. The following two
expressions make Emacs work a lot like Visual Studio in this regard.
reddit this! Digg Me!
(global-set-key [(shift f5)] 'compile) (global-set-key [f12] 'next-error)After these forms are evaluated, pressing Shift-F5 invokes the compile command, which asks for a command to be run in an inferior shell, typically make, ant, or some other build utility. The catch is that it runs the command in the directory of the current buffer, which implies that the build script can be found in the same directory as the current source file. For a Java project with a per-package directory hierarchy, this is often not true. There are probably a bunch of ways to fix this, but I've solved it with a Windows NT batch file, ant-up.bat, that repeatedly searches up the directory hierarchy for build.xml. I just compile with ant-up, rather than a direct invocation of ant. This is not the most elegant solution, I'm sure, but it took about five minutes to implement and works well.
@echo off setlocal :retry set last_path=%CD% echo Searching %CD% ... if exist build.xml goto compile-now cd .. if "%last_path%"=="%CD%" goto abort goto retry :compile-now call ant -k %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 if errorlevel 1 goto failure goto success :abort echo build.xml not found... compile failed :failure exit /b 1 :success exit /b 0
reddit this! Digg Me!
[/tech/programming] permanent link
Tue, 08 Jan 2008
Lately, I've been thinking a bit about the way language design
influences library design. My line of thought started out inspired by
some of the recent conversations about closures in Java, but it ended
up also touching on dynamic typing and a few other 'modern' language
features. This will end up being more than one post, but I thought
I'd record some of it in my blog, with the hope that it might shed
some light for somebody, somewhere.
To motivate this discussion, I'll use as an example a simple C implementation of a string-interning function, intern_string. If you're not familiar with the concept of interning, the premise is that interning two objects ensures that if they have the same value, they also have the same identity. In the case of C strings, interning ensures that if strcmp(intern_string(a), intern_string(b)) == 0 holds true, then intern_string(a) == intern_string(b) also holds true. Since it effectively means that each string value is only stored one time, this technique can reduce memory requirements. It also gives you a cheap string equality comparison: checking two interned strings for equality reduces to a pointer comparison, which is about as fast as it gets.
Given a hash table that compares keys by value, implementing the function string_intern is fairly simple. In the following code code, intern_table is a hash table that maps strings to themselves. hash_ref, hash_set, and hash_has are functions that manipulate the hash table:
Note the critical assumption that the hash_* accessors implement key comparison by value sementics, strcmp, rather than identity semantics, ==.
If you haven't guessed already, the problem with this implementation of intern_string lies in the dual calls to hash_has and hash_ref. Both calls involve searching the hash table for the key: hash_has to determine if the key exists, and hash_ref to retrieve the key's value. This means that in the common case, interning a string that's already been interned, this implementaion searches the hash table twice. Double work.
Fixing this problem involves changing the calling conventions for hash_ref. One of the simplest ways to do this involves defining a specific return value that hash_ref can return in the 'key not found' case. For strings in C, NULL is a logical choice. This change to hash_ref makes it possible to remove the double search by eliminating the explicit hash_has check:
One example of this is a choice that's particularly well supported by dynamically typed languages. With a language that can identify types at runtime, it becomes possible for hash_ref to return values of a different type if the key is not found. This value can be distinguished from other return values by virtue of the run time type identification supported by the language. In one such language, Scheme, this lets us implement intern-string like this:
The way the dynamically typed language solved this problem is worth considering. When a dynamically typed language passes a value, what it's really doing is returning a pointer along with a few extra bits describing the type of the object being pointed to. (Runtime implementations might vary, but that's the gist of many.) Using dynamic typing to distinguish between those two possible cases really amounts to using those few extra type bits to contain 'another' return value, one holding information on whether or not the key was found. This is exactly what our 'best' C implementation does explicitly with a return value and a reference value. The dynamic typing isn't necessarily adding any expressive power, but it is giving another, concise means of expressing what we're trying to say.
reddit this! Digg Me!
To motivate this discussion, I'll use as an example a simple C implementation of a string-interning function, intern_string. If you're not familiar with the concept of interning, the premise is that interning two objects ensures that if they have the same value, they also have the same identity. In the case of C strings, interning ensures that if strcmp(intern_string(a), intern_string(b)) == 0 holds true, then intern_string(a) == intern_string(b) also holds true. Since it effectively means that each string value is only stored one time, this technique can reduce memory requirements. It also gives you a cheap string equality comparison: checking two interned strings for equality reduces to a pointer comparison, which is about as fast as it gets.
Given a hash table that compares keys by value, implementing the function string_intern is fairly simple. In the following code code, intern_table is a hash table that maps strings to themselves. hash_ref, hash_set, and hash_has are functions that manipulate the hash table:
Note the critical assumption that the hash_* accessors implement key comparison by value sementics, strcmp, rather than identity semantics, ==.
hash_table_t intern_table; // assume this is initialized somewhere else.
char *intern_string(char *str)
{
if (hash_has(intern_table, str))
return hash_ref(intern_table, str);
char *interned_str = strdup(str);
hash_set(intern_table, interned_str, interned_str);
return interned_str;
}
The first step of intern_string is to check to see if the
intern table already contains a string with the value of the new
string. If the new string is already in the intern table, then the
function returns the copy that's in the table. Otherwise, a new copy
of the incoming string is created and stored in the hash table. In
either case, the string returned is in the the intern table. This
logic ensures that every time intern_string is called with a
str of the same value, it returns the same exact string.
If you haven't guessed already, the problem with this implementation of intern_string lies in the dual calls to hash_has and hash_ref. Both calls involve searching the hash table for the key: hash_has to determine if the key exists, and hash_ref to retrieve the key's value. This means that in the common case, interning a string that's already been interned, this implementaion searches the hash table twice. Double work.
Fixing this problem involves changing the calling conventions for hash_ref. One of the simplest ways to do this involves defining a specific return value that hash_ref can return in the 'key not found' case. For strings in C, NULL is a logical choice. This change to hash_ref makes it possible to remove the double search by eliminating the explicit hash_has check:
hash_table_t intern_table;
char *intern_string(char *str)
{
char *interned_str = hash_ref(intern_table, str);
if (interned_str == NULL)
{
interned_str = strdup(str);
hash_set(intern_table, interned_str, interned_str);
}
return interned_str;
}
For this string interning, this change to hash_ref interface
works fairly well. We know that we'll never store a hash key with a
NULL value, so we know that NULL is safe to use for
signaling that a key was not found. Were this ever to change, this
version of hash_ref doesn't return enough information to
distinguish between the 'key not found' case and the 'NULL
value' case. Both would return NULL. To fix this,
hash_ref needs to be extended to also return a seperate value
that indicates if the key was found. This can be done in C by having
hash_ref return the 'key found' flag as a return value, and
also accept a pointer to a buffer that will contain the key's value,
if it's found:
hash_table_t intern_table;
char *intern_string(char *str)
{
char *interned_str;
if (!hash_ref(intern_table, str, &interned_str))
{
interned_str = strdup(str);
hash_set(intern_table, interned_str, interned_str);
}
return interned_str;
}
This is probably about as good as you can get in straight C. It
easily distinguishes between the 'no-value' and 'no-key' cases, it's
relatively clear to read, and it uses the common idioms of the
language. However, C is a relatively sparse language. If you're
willing to switch to something a bit more expressive, you have other
choices.
One example of this is a choice that's particularly well supported by dynamically typed languages. With a language that can identify types at runtime, it becomes possible for hash_ref to return values of a different type if the key is not found. This value can be distinguished from other return values by virtue of the run time type identification supported by the language. In one such language, Scheme, this lets us implement intern-string like this:
(define *intern-table* (make-hash :equal))
(define (intern-string str)
(let ((interned-str (hash-ref *intern-table* str 42)))
(cond ((= interned-str 42)
(hash-set! *intern-table* str str)
str)
(#t
interned-str)))))
If you prefer C/JavaScript-style syntax, it looks like this:
var intern_table = make_hash(EQUAL);
function intern_string(str)
{
var interned_str = hash_ref(intern_table, str, 42);
if (interned_str == 42)
{
hash_set(intern_table, str, str);
return str;
}
return interned_str;
}
In this case, hash_ref has been extended with a third
argument: a default return value if the key is not found. The above
code uses this to have hash_ref return a number in 'no value'
case, and it's the type itself of this return value that ensures its
distinctness. This is a common dynamic language idiom, but for a
moment, consider what it would look like in C:
hash_table_t intern_table;
char *intern_string(char *str)
{
char *interned_str = hash_ref(intern_table, str, (char *)42);
if (interned_str == (char *)42)
{
interned_str = strdup(str);
hash_set(intern_table, interned_str, interned_str);
}
return interned_str;
}
At first, this actually seems like it might a plausible implementation
of intern_string. My guess is that it might even work most of
the time. Where this implementation gets into trouble is the case when
an interned string might reasonably be located at address 42. Because
C is statically typed, When hash_ref returns, all it returns
is a pointer. The caller cannot distinguish between the 'valid string
at address 42' return value and the 'no-key' return value. This is
basically the same problem as the case where we overloaded NULL
to signal 'no-key'.
The way the dynamically typed language solved this problem is worth considering. When a dynamically typed language passes a value, what it's really doing is returning a pointer along with a few extra bits describing the type of the object being pointed to. (Runtime implementations might vary, but that's the gist of many.) Using dynamic typing to distinguish between those two possible cases really amounts to using those few extra type bits to contain 'another' return value, one holding information on whether or not the key was found. This is exactly what our 'best' C implementation does explicitly with a return value and a reference value. The dynamic typing isn't necessarily adding any expressive power, but it is giving another, concise means of expressing what we're trying to say.
reddit this! Digg Me!
[/tech/programming] permanent link
It seems that it's been a while since I've posted: about four months.
That's longer then I meant, but isn't that always the case?
In the four months since I've not been posting, Ryan has crawled, learn to walk, learned to talk a little, and learned to respond to simple questions. Personally speaking, I've worked a bit on vCalc, not to mention the more important bill-paying work of my full time day job. Personally, I think Ryan is making me look like a slacker, but I suppose that's a matter of judgement. :-)
Anyway, I hope your holiday season was all you wanted it to be, and Happy New Year. I have a few ideas for new posts, so with some luck, the next gap won't be four months long.
reddit this! Digg Me!
In the four months since I've not been posting, Ryan has crawled, learn to walk, learned to talk a little, and learned to respond to simple questions. Personally speaking, I've worked a bit on vCalc, not to mention the more important bill-paying work of my full time day job. Personally, I think Ryan is making me look like a slacker, but I suppose that's a matter of judgement. :-)
Anyway, I hope your holiday season was all you wanted it to be, and Happy New Year. I have a few ideas for new posts, so with some luck, the next gap won't be four months long.
reddit this! Digg Me!