[M3devel] reference to globals in globals?

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
we
need to calculate first Module instantiation in Modula-3 in SPIN
MODULE_UNIT, that is trying to establish first Module instantiation,
initialization, and then you can extract CONST "address" in the actual
case is similar to that, a pointer to an address of the actual value,
if pointer is NIL valued then it needed initialization in compile time
else is a RT error to use its value, as we have proposed in other cases.
Jay, please see this BitC language, has constructors for all those RT structures of your new back-end (hope you enjoy it, see p. 14, s. 3.6.2, Tag Representation):
http://bitc-lang.org/docs/bitc/spec.pdf
).
This leads in some special architectures to a double pointer-sized machine word type, which is why I talked about LONGADDRESS proposal.
Thanks in advance

--- El mié, 15/8/12, Jay
 <jay.krell at cornell.edu> escribió:

De: Jay <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Asunto: Re: [M3devel] reference to globals in globals?
Para: "Tony Hosking" <hosking at cs.purdue.edu>
CC: "m3devel at elegosoft.com developers" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>, "Jay K" <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Fecha: miércoles, 15 de agosto, 2012 11:56

I
restructured the code but it still bothers me. Getting the levels of
indirection correct is checked for you in C/C++ as '&' returns a
stronger type than 'ADR'.
I didn't want the array only because then I could only access the data more verbosely/slowly via the array.  More later, maybe.

 - Jay (briefly/pocket-sized-computer-aka-phone)

On Aug 15, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Tony Hosking <hosking at cs.purdue.edu> wrote:

> Jay,
> 
> Any time you want to pass a reference to a local/global as a parameter you can use VAR/READONLY parameter mode.
> 
> I don’t know enough about your use-case to understand what you are trying to do.
> 
> 
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:51 AM, "Rodney M. Bates" <rodney_bates at lcwb.coop> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 08/14/2012 10:04 PM, Jay K wrote:
>>> Isn't it safe to take the address of a global?
>>> 
>> 
>> Do you mean can't you use the ADR function in safe code
>> if you apply it only to a global variable?  The answer
>> to that is no.  The ADR function is illegal altogether in
>> safe code.
>>
 
>> As to why, I can only speculate, but see below.  I suspect
>> even in this case, it is not as simple as it seems.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I have something like this:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> CONST UID_INTEGER = 1234;
>>> CONST UID_FLOAT = 4567;
>>>  ... several more ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> TYPE CType = OBJECT .. END;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> VAR t_int: CType := ...;
>>> VAR t_float: CType := ...;
>>>  ... several more ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> MapTypeIdToType(UID_INTEGER, t_int);
>>> MapTypeIdToType(UID_FLOAT, FLOAT);
>>>  ... several more ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> but what I really want is more like:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> TYPE RECORD = BuiltinUid_t
 =
>>>  typeid: INTEGER;
>>>  ctype: REF CType;
>> 
>>           ^UNTRACED REF?  If it were just REF, that would imply that
>> your global variable (the pointer it contains) is a heap object, that
>> it has heap allocator/GC overhead data attached to it, and that the GC
>> should trace it, none of which is true.
>> 
>> 
>>> END;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> CONST BuiltinUids = ARRAY OF BuiltinUids {
>>>  BuiltinUids{UID_INTEGER, &t_int},
>>>  BuiltinUids{UID_FLOAT, &t_float},
>> 
>> ADR instead of &?  If so, you are still not there, because ADR
>> returns a value of type ADDRESS, i.e., an untraced reference to
>> we-don't-know-what.  Somewhere, you would also have to use a
>> LOOPHOLE to
 get it to UNTRACED REF CType.
>> 
>>>  ... several more ...
>>> };
>>> 
>>> 
>>> FOR i := FIRST(BuiltinUids) TO LAST(BuiltinUids) DO
>>>  MapTypeIdToType(BuiltinUids[i].typeid, BuiltinUids[i].ctype);
>>> END;
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't know what the signature of MapTypeIdToType is, but above,
>> you are passing a variable of object type to its 2nd parameter,
>> (which contains a traced reference to the actual heap object).
>> But here, you pass the _address_ of the above.  Inconsistent
>> number of levels of indirection.  A static safe language is
>> much more likely to help with things like this.
>> 
>> Maybe you just want to say
>> 
>> TYPE RECORD = BuiltinUid_t =
>>  typeid: INTEGER;
>>  ctype:
 CType;
>> 
>> and
>> 
>> BuiltinUids{UID_INTEGER, t_int}?
>> 
>> This would be equivalent to your first way, and doesn't require any
>> unsafe coding at all.
>> 
>> Or, you could do away with global variable t_int altogether and
>> just initialize directly into BuiltinUids[..].ctype with whatever
>> expression you used to initialize t_int.  It looks like your array
>> makes the t_int and cousins redundant.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Heck, even if these weren't global, is it that unreasonble,
>>> from the programmer's point of view, for the language/compiler
>>> to do some pointer escape analysis and let me take the address
>>> of a local, as long as I don't store it somewhere that outlives
>>> the local?
>>> 
>> 
>> This is ultimately an
 undecidable problem and even conservative
>> approximations of reasonable sophistication are far too involved
>> for a language to require of every compiler.
>> 
>>> 
>>> You can see this particular pattern currently in
>>> m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/gcc/m3cg/parse.c
>>> 
>>> 
>>> and I'm pretty busy now working on m3-sys/m3back/src/M3C.m3
>>> where I encounter this.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Working in safe languages can be frustrating...
>>> 
>> 
>> It's just an instant/deferred gratification thing.  Safe languages often
>> make you stop and fix it before you run it.  Unsafe languages let you naively
>> forge ahead to the next step, where the bug is likely to be *much* harder to
>> diagnose, assuming you even have enough test cases to notice it at all
 during
>> development.  Your code here is a good example.
>> 
>> Of course, safe languages occasionally make you unnecessarily write a bit more
>> code to do it the safe way.  E.g., the famous fake pointer to the root of a
>> linked list example.  In my personal experience, these times are at least
>> one order of magnitude less frequent than the times safe languages reduce
>> great pain to minor pain, albeit sooner.  If fact, if you are accustomed to
>> thinking in type-safe terms, it is seldom any harder to code it safely in the
>> first place.
>> 
>> You're making it too difficult.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> - Jay
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20120815/ffdaff80/attachment-0002.html>