> On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Karl Wagner <razie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 3. Aug 2017, at 00:21, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com
>> <mailto:rjmcc...@apple.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:10 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Karl Wagner <razie...@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:razie...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> On 31. Jul 2017, at 21:09, John McCall via swift-evolution
>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 3:15 AM, Gor Gyolchanyan
>>>>>> <gor.f.gyolchan...@icloud.com <mailto:gor.f.gyolchan...@icloud.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 7:10 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution
>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Daryle Walker <dary...@mac.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:dary...@mac.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The parameters for a fixed-size array type determine the type's
>>>>>>>> size/stride, so how could the bounds not be needed during
>>>>>>>> compile-time? The compiler can't layout objects otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Swift is not C; it is perfectly capable of laying out objects at run
>>>>>>> time. It already has to do that for generic types and types with
>>>>>>> resilient members. That does, of course, have performance
>>>>>>> consequences, and those performance consequences might be unacceptable
>>>>>>> to you; but the fact that we can handle it means that we don't
>>>>>>> ultimately require a semantic concept of a constant expression, except
>>>>>>> inasmuch as we want to allow users to explicitly request guarantees
>>>>>>> about static layout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't this defeat the purpose of generic value parameters? We might as
>>>>>> well use a regular parameter if there's no compile-time evaluation
>>>>>> involved. In that case, fixed-sized arrays will be useless, because
>>>>>> they'll be normal arrays with resizing disabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're making huge leaps here. The primary purpose of a fixed-size array
>>>>> feature is to allow the array to be allocated "inline" in its context
>>>>> instead of "out-of-line" using heap-allocated copy-on-write buffers.
>>>>> There is no reason that that representation would not be supportable just
>>>>> because the array's bound is not statically known; the only thing that
>>>>> matters is whether the bound is consistent for all instances of the
>>>>> container.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is, it would not be okay to have a type like:
>>>>> struct Widget {
>>>>> let length: Int
>>>>> var array: [length x Int]
>>>>> }
>>>>> because the value of the bound cannot be computed independently of a
>>>>> specific value.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it is absolutely okay to have a type like:
>>>>> struct Widget {
>>>>> var array: [(isRunningOnIOS15() ? 20 : 10) x Int]
>>>>> }
>>>>> It just means that the bound would get computed at runtime and,
>>>>> presumably, cached. The fact that this type's size isn't known
>>>>> statically does mean that the compiler has to be more pessimistic, but
>>>>> its values would still get allocated inline into their containers and
>>>>> even on the stack, using pretty much the same techniques as C99 VLAs.
>>>>
>>>> Do we really want to make that guarantee about heap/stack allocation?
>>>> C99’s VLAs are not very loop-friendly:
>>>>
>>>> echo "int main() {
>>>> for(int i = 0; i<1000000; i++) {
>>>> int myArray[i * 1000]; myArray[0] = 32;
>>>> }
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }" | clang -x c - && ./a.out
>>>>
>>>> Segmentation Fault: 11
>>>>
>>>> C compilers also do not inline code with VLAs by default. If you force it,
>>>> you expose yourself to possible stack overflows:
>>>>
>>>> echo "static inline void doSomething(int i) {
>>>> int myArray[i * 1000]; myArray[0] = 32;
>>>> }
>>>> int main() {
>>>> for(int i = 0; i<1000000; i++) {
>>>> doSomething(i);
>>>> }
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }" | clang -x c - && ./a.out
>>>>
>>>> Segmentation Fault: 11
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn’t like us to import these kinds of issues in to Swift
>>>
>>> We probably would not make an absolute guarantee of stack allocation, no.
>>
>> Although I will note that the problem in your example has nothing to do with
>> it being a loop and everything to do with it asking for an almost 4GB array.
>> :)
>>
>> John.
>
>
> Yeah, apologies - it was a bit of a poorly-written example.
>
> The root cause, of course, is that the VLAs require new stack allocations
> each time, and the stack is only deallocated as one lump when the frame ends.
That is true of alloca(), but not of VLAs. VLAs are freed when they go out of
scope. Your example crashes only because it is doing a huge stack allocation.
#include <unistd.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
void foo(size_t n) {
int fd = open("/dev/null", O_RDONLY);
for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; ++i) {
char buffer[n];
read(fd, buffer, n);
}
close(fd);
}
int main() {
foo(100000);
}
> A fixed-size object could be allocated once and re-used. Inlining prevents
> new stack frames being created and hence defers deallocation of those objects
> until the outer function ends, pushing up the high-water mark of the stack.
>
> The problem also happens with an outer loop of only 10_000, so only 38MB.
> Still, enough to blow it up.
Operating systems generally impose limits on both the total size of the stack
and the amount by which it can grow at once; 38MB is still likely large enough.
John.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
