Changeset 04c6340 for doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath

Timestamp:

Nov 7, 2024, 12:29:33 PM (8 days ago)

Author:

Michael Brooks <mlbrooks@…>

Branches:

master

Children:

83a581a

Parents:

e1107ec

Message:

Array, lifecycle: more proofreading

File:

• doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/array.tex (modified) (7 diffs)

doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/array.tex

@@ -1096 +1096 @@
 both are containers wrapping subordinate objects.
 Any arbitrary object type, like @string@, can be an array element or structure member.
-A consequence is that the lifetime of the container must match with its subordinate objects.
-For example, all elements and members must be initialized/uninitialized implicitly as part of the container's allocation/deallocation.
+A consequence is that the lifetime of the container must match with its subordinate objects: all elements and members must be initialized/uninitialized implicitly as part of the container's allocation/deallocation.
 Modern programming languages implicitly perform these operations via a type's constructor and destructor.
-Therefore, \CFA must assure these lifetime operations are called, regardless of the lexical nesting depth of containers and their components.
-
-Preexisting \CFA mechanisms achieve this requirement, but with poor performance (discussed shortly).
+Therefore, \CFA must assure that an array's subordinate objects' lifetime operations are called.
+
+Preexisting \CFA mechanisms achieve this requirement, but with poor performance.
 Furthermore, advanced array users need an exception to the basic mechanism, which does not occur with other aggregates.
-Hence, there are subtleties in supporting an element's lifecycle with arrays.
-
-The preexisting \CFA support for contained-element lifecycle is based on a recursive implementation of the object-type (@otype@) pseudo-trait.
-A type is an @otype@, if it provides a parameterless (default) constructor, copy constructor, assignment operator, and destructor (like \CC).
+Hence, arrays introduce subleties in supporting an element's lifecycle.
+
+The preexisting \CFA support for contained-element lifecycle is based on recursive occurrences of the object-type (@otype@) pseudo-trait.
+A type is an @otype@, if it provides a default (parameterless) constructor, copy constructor, assignment operator, and destructor (like \CC).
 When declaring a structure with @otype@ members, the compiler implicitly generates implementations of the four @otype@ functions for the outer structure.
 Then the generated default constructor for the outer structure calls the default constructor for each member, and the other @otype@ functions work similarly.
-For a member that is a C array, these calls occur in a loop for each array element, which even for VLAs.
+For a member that is a C array, these calls occur in a loop for each array element, which even works for VLAs.
 This logic works the same, whether the member is a concrete type (that happens to be an @otype@) or if the member is a polymorphic type asserted to be an @otype@ (which is implicit in the syntax, @forall(T)@).
 The \CFA array has the simplified form (similar to one seen before):
@@ -1126 +1125 @@
 array5( array5( array5( float ) ) )
 \end{cfa}
-its lifecycle functions, under the @otype@-recursion pattern, is shown in \VRef[Figure]{}, where
-\begin{cfa}
-array5(array5(array5(float)))
-\end{cfa}
-has 256 leaves.
+the first few steps of the compiler's work to find the lifecycle functions, under the @otype@-recursion pattern, are shown in \VRef[Figure]{f:OtypeRecursionBlowup}.
+All the work needed for the full @float@-cube would have 256 leaves.
 
 %array5(T) offers
@@ -1254 +1250 @@
 \end{cfa}
 \end{tabular}
-\caption{write a caption}
+\caption{Exponential thunk generation under the otype-recursion pattern.
+        Each time that one type's function (\eg ctor) uses another type's function, the \CFA compiler generates a thunk, to capture the used function's dependencies, presented according to the using function's need.
+        So, each non-leaf line represents a generated thunk and every line represents a search request for the resolver to find a satisfying function.}
+\label{f:OtypeRecursionBlowup}
 \end{figure}
 
-Each xxx corresponds to a generated thunk.
-So the @otype@-recursion pattern generates a quantity of thunks that is exponential in the number of dimensions.
+So the @otype@-recursion pattern seeks a quantity of helper functions, and generates a quantity of thunks, that are exponential in the number of dimensions.
 Anecdotal experience with this solution found the resulting compile times annoyingly slow at three dimensions, and unusable at four.
 
@@ -1264 +1262 @@
 Consider how @array5(float)@'s default constructor is getting all four lifecycle assertions about the element type, @float@.
 It only needs @float@'s default constructor;
-all the operations are never used.
-%For the assignment operator, it turns out that today's RAII pattern has it using a copy constructor, assignment operator and destructor.
-Current by the \CFA team aims to improve this situation.
+the full set of operations is never used.
+Current work by the \CFA team aims to improve this situation.
 Therefore, a workaround is needed for now.
 
@@ -1305 +1302 @@
 \end{tabular}
 \end{cquote}
-Moreover, the assignment operator is skipped, because array assignment is not a common operation.
-This way, the critical lifecycle functions are available, with no growth in thunk creation.
-
-Finally, the intuition that a programmer using an array always wants element's default constructor called \emph{automatically} is simplistic.
+Moreover, the assignment operator is skipped, to avoid hitting a lingering growth case.
+Skipping assignment is tolerable because array assignment is not a common operation.
+With this solution, the critical lifecycle functions are available, with no growth in thunk creation.
+
+Finally, the intuition that a programmer using an array always wants the elements' default constructor called \emph{automatically} is simplistic.
 Arrays exist to store different values at each position.
 So, array initialization needs to let the programmer provide different constructor arguments to each element.
@@ -1315 +1313 @@
 void ?{}( worker & ) = void; // remove default constructor
 void ?{}( worker &, int id );
-array( worker, 5 ) ws = {}; // no initialization
-for (i; 5) (ws[i]){ @i@ }; // explicitly initialize each thread's id
-\end{cfa}
-Note the ability to explicitly call a constructor in \CFA, unlike in \CC.
-
-Two \CFA features may, at first, seem viable for initializing the array @ws@, but on closer inspection, they are not.
-\begin{itemize}
-\item
-        Empty initializer / elided default constructor.
-        The problem is that a thread type needs to fork a thread at the \emph{end} of each constructor and join with a thread at the \emph{start} of each destructor.
-        Therefore, there is a conflict between the implicit actions by a builtin @thread@ type and a user's desire to remove actions with respect to allocation/deallocation.
-\item
-        C initialization: \lstinline|array(worker, 5) ws @= {};|, which ignores all \CFA initialization and uses C empty initialization.
-        This option does achieve the desired semantics on the construction side.
-        But on destruction side, the desired semantics is for implicit destructor calls to continue for the join operation.
-        C initialization disables \emph{all} implicit lifecycle management; whereas, the goal is to disable only the implicit construction.
-\end{itemize}
+array( worker, 5 ) ws = @{}@; // rejected; but desire is for no initialization yet
+for (i; 5) (ws[i]){ @i@ }; // explicitly initialize each thread, giving id
+\end{cfa}
+Note the use of the \CFA explicit constructor call, analogous to \CC's placement-@new@.
+This call is where initialization is desired, and not at the declaration of @ws@.
+The attempt to initialize from nothing (equivalent to dropping @= {}@ altogether) is invalid because the @worker@ type removes the default constructor.
+The @worker@ type is designed this way to work with the threading system.
+A thread type forks a thread at the end of each constructor and joins with it at the start of each destructor.
+But a @worker@ cannot begin its forked-thead work without knowing its @id@.
+Therefore, there is a conflict between the implicit actions of the builtin @thread@ type and a user's desire to defer these actions.
+
+Another \CFA feature may, at first, seem viable for initializing the array @ws@, though on closer inspection, it is not.
+C initialization, \lstinline|array(worker, 5) ws @= {};|, ignores all \CFA lifecycle management and uses C empty initialization.
+This option does achieve the desired semantics on the construction side.
+But on destruction side, the desired semantics is for implicit destructor calls to continue, to keep the join operation tied to lexical scope.
+C initialization disables \emph{all} implicit lifecycle management, but the goal is to disable only the implicit construction.
 
 To fix this problem, I enhanced the \CFA standard library to provide the missing semantics, available in either form:
@@ -1341 +1338 @@
 Two forms are available, to parallel the development of this feature in \uCpp.
 Originally \uCpp offered only the @ws1@ form, using the class-template @uNoCtor@ equivalent to \CFA's @uninit@.
-More recently, \uCpp was extended with declaration macro, @uArray@, with usage similar to the @ws2@ case.
+More recently, \uCpp was extended with the declaration macro, @uArray@, with usage similar to the @ws2@ case.
 Based on experience piloting @uArray@ as a replacement of @uNoCtor@, it might be possible to remove the first option.