Changes in / [4f1b8f3f:2f19e03]


Ignore:
Location:
doc/theses/andrew_beach_MMath
Files:
3 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed

  • doc/theses/andrew_beach_MMath/existing.tex

    r4f1b8f3f r2f19e03  
    1 \chapter{\CFA Existing Features}
     1\chapter{\CFA{} Existing Features}
    22\label{c:existing}
    33
    … …  
    99existing C code-base allowing programmers to learn \CFA on an as-needed basis.
    1010
    11 Only those \CFA features pertaining to this thesis are discussed.  Many of the
    12 \CFA syntactic and semantic features used in the thesis should be fairly
    13 obvious to the reader.
     11Only those \CFA features pertaining to this thesis are discussed.
     12Also, only new features of \CFA will be discussed, a basic familiarity with
     13C or C-like languages is assumed.
    1414
    1515\section{Overloading and \lstinline{extern}}
    … …  
    2929// name mangling on by default
    3030int i; // _X1ii_1
    31 @extern "C"@ {  // disables name mangling
     31extern "C" {  // disables name mangling
    3232        int j; // j
    33         @extern "Cforall"@ {  // enables name mangling
     33        extern "Cforall" {  // enables name mangling
    3434                int k; // _X1ki_1
    3535        }
    … …  
    4747Reference-types are written the same way as a pointer-type but each
    4848asterisk (@*@) is replaced with a ampersand (@&@);
    49 this includes cv-qualifiers and multiple levels of reference, \eg:
    50 
     49this includes cv-qualifiers and multiple levels of reference.
     50
     51Generally, references act like pointers with an implicate dereferencing
     52operation added to each use of the variable.
     53These automatic dereferences may be disabled with the address-of operator
     54(@&@).
     55
     56% Check to see if these are generating errors.
    5157\begin{minipage}{0,5\textwidth}
    5258With references:
    … …  
    5662int && rri = ri;
    5763rri = 3;
    58 &ri = &j; // reference assignment
     64&ri = &j;
    5965ri = 5;
    6066\end{cfa}
    … …  
    6773int ** ppi = π
    6874**ppi = 3;
    69 pi = &j; // pointer assignment
     75pi = &j;
    7076*pi = 5;
    7177\end{cfa}
    7278\end{minipage}
    7379
    74 References are intended for cases where you would want to use pointers but would
     80References are intended to be used when you would use pointers but would
    7581be dereferencing them (almost) every usage.
    76 In most cases a reference can just be thought of as a pointer that
    77 automatically puts a dereference in front of each of its uses (per-level of
    78 reference).
    79 The address-of operator (@&@) acts as an escape and removes one of the
    80 automatic dereference operations.
    81 Mutable references may be assigned by converting them to a pointer
    82 with a @&@ and then assigning a pointer to them, as in @&ri = &j;@ above.
     82Mutable references may be assigned to by converting them to a pointer
     83with a @&@ and then assigning a pointer to them, as in @&ri = &j;@ above
    8384
    8485\section{Operators}
    8586
    86 In general, operator names in \CFA are constructed by bracketing an operator
    87 token with @?@, which indicates the position of the arguments. For example,
     87\CFA implements operator overloading by providing special names.
     88Operator uses are translated into function calls using these names.
     89These names are created by taking the operator symbols and joining them with
     90@?@ where the arguments would go.
     91For example,
    8892infixed multiplication is @?*?@ while prefix dereference is @*?@.
    8993This syntax make it easy to tell the difference between prefix operations
    9094(such as @++?@) and post-fix operations (@?++@).
    9195
    92 An operator name may describe any function signature (it is just a name) but
    93 only certain signatures may be called in operator form.
    94 \begin{cfa}
    95 int ?+?( int i, int j, int k ) { return i + j + k; }
    96 {
    97         sout | ?+?( 3, 4, 5 ); // no infix form
    98 }
    99 \end{cfa}
    100 Some ``near-misses" for unary/binary operator prototypes generate warnings.
     96\begin{cfa}
     97int ?+?(point a, point b) { return point{a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y}; }
     98bool ?==?(point a, point b) { return a.x == b.x && a.y == b.y; }
     99{
     100        assert(point{1, 2} + point{3, 4} == point{4, 6});
     101}
     102\end{cfa}
     103Note that these special names are not limited to just being used for these
     104operator functions, and may be used name other declarations.
     105Some ``near misses", that will not match an operator form but looks like
     106it may have been supposed to, will generate wantings but otherwise they are
     107left alone.
     108
     109%\subsection{Constructors and Destructors}
    101110
    102111Both constructors and destructors are operators, which means they are
    103112functions with special operator names rather than type names in \Cpp. The
    104 special operator names may be used to call the functions explicitly (not
    105 allowed in \Cpp for constructors).
    106 
    107 The special name for a constructor is @?{}@, where the name @{}@ comes from the
    108 initialization syntax in C, \eg @Structure s = {...}@.
    109 % That initialization syntax is also the operator form.
    110 \CFA generates a constructor call each time a variable is declared,
    111 passing the initialization arguments to the constructor.
    112 \begin{cfa}
    113 struct Structure { ... };
    114 void ?{}(Structure & this) { ... }
    115 {
    116         Structure a;
    117         Structure b = {};
    118 }
    119 void ?{}(Structure & this, char first, int num) { ... }
    120 {
    121         Structure c = {'a', 2};
    122 }
    123 \end{cfa}
    124 Both @a@ and @b@ are initialized with the first constructor,
    125 while @c@ is initialized with the second.
    126 Currently, there is no general way to skip initialization.
     113special operator names may be used to call the functions explicitly.
     114% Placement new means that this is actually equivant to C++.
     115
     116The special name for a constructor is @?{}@, which comes from the
     117initialization syntax in C, \eg @Example e = { ... }@.
     118\CFA will generate a constructor call each time a variable is declared,
     119passing the initialization arguments to the constructort.
     120\begin{cfa}
     121struct Example { ... };
     122void ?{}(Example & this) { ... }
     123{
     124        Example a;
     125        Example b = {};
     126}
     127void ?{}(Example & this, char first, int num) { ... }
     128{
     129        Example c = {'a', 2};
     130}
     131\end{cfa}
     132Both @a@ and @b@ will be initalized with the first constructor,
     133while @c@ will be initalized with the second.
     134Currently, there is no general way to skip initialation.
    127135
    128136% I don't like the \^{} symbol but $^\wedge$ isn't better.
    129 Similarly, destructors use the special name @^?{}@ (the @^@ has no special
    130 meaning).  Normally, they are implicitly called on a variable when it goes out
    131 of scope but they can be called explicitly as well.
    132 \begin{cfa}
    133 void ^?{}(Structure & this) { ... }
    134 {
    135         Structure d;
     137Similarly destructors use the special name @^?{}@ (the @^@ has no special
     138meaning).
     139These are a normally called implicitly called on a variable when it goes out
     140of scope. They can be called explicitly as well.
     141\begin{cfa}
     142void ^?{}(Example & this) { ... }
     143{
     144        Example d;
    136145} // <- implicit destructor call
    137146\end{cfa}
    138147
    139 Whenever a type is defined, \CFA creates a default zero-argument
     148Whenever a type is defined, \CFA will create a default zero-argument
    140149constructor, a copy constructor, a series of argument-per-field constructors
    141150and a destructor. All user constructors are defined after this.
    … …  
    198207void do_once(double y) { ... }
    199208int quadruple(int x) {
    200         void do_once(int y) { y = y * 2; } // replace global do_once
    201         do_twice(x); // use local do_once
    202         do_twice(x + 1.5); // use global do_once
     209        void do_once(int & y) { y = y * 2; }
     210        do_twice(x);
    203211        return x;
    204212}
    205213\end{cfa}
    206214Specifically, the complier deduces that @do_twice@'s T is an integer from the
    207 argument @x@. It then looks for the most \emph{specific} definition matching the
     215argument @x@. It then looks for the most specific definition matching the
    208216assertion, which is the nested integral @do_once@ defined within the
    209217function. The matched assertion function is then passed as a function pointer
    210 to @do_twice@ and called within it.  The global definition of @do_once@ is used
    211 for the second call because the float-point argument is a better match.
     218to @do_twice@ and called within it.
     219The global definition of @do_once@ is ignored, however if quadruple took a
     220@double@ argument then the global definition would be used instead as it
     221would be a better match.
     222% Aaron's thesis might be a good reference here.
    212223
    213224To avoid typing long lists of assertions, constraints can be collect into
    … …  
    279290Each coroutine has a @main@ function, which takes a reference to a coroutine
    280291object and returns @void@.
    281 \begin{cfa}[numbers=left]
     292%[numbers=left] Why numbers on this one?
     293\begin{cfa}
    282294void main(CountUp & this) {
    283295        for (unsigned int next = 0 ; true ; ++next) {

  • doc/theses/andrew_beach_MMath/features.tex

    r4f1b8f3f r2f19e03  
    22\label{c:features}
    33
    4 This chapter covers the design and user interface of the \CFA
    5 EHM, % or exception system.
     4This chapter covers the design and user interface of the \CFA EHM
    65and begins with a general overview of EHMs. It is not a strict
    76definition of all EHMs nor an exhaustive list of all possible features.
    8 However it does cover the most common structures and features found in them.
    9 
     7However it does cover the most common structure and features found in them.
     8
     9\section{Overview of EHMs}
    1010% We should cover what is an exception handling mechanism and what is an
    1111% exception before this. Probably in the introduction. Some of this could
    1212% move there.
    13 \section{Raise / Handle}
     13\subsection{Raise / Handle}
    1414An exception operation has two main parts: raise and handle.
    1515These terms are sometimes also known as throw and catch but this work uses
    … …  
    2424
    2525Some well known examples include the @throw@ statements of \Cpp and Java and
    26 the \code{Python}{raise} statement from Python. A raise may
    27 perform some other work (such as memory management) but for the
     26the \code{Python}{raise} statement from Python. In real systems a raise may
     27preform some other work (such as memory management) but for the
    2828purposes of this overview that can be ignored.
    2929
    … …  
    3333
    3434A handler has three common features: the previously mentioned user code, a
    35 region of code they guard, and an exception label/condition that matches
     35region of code they guard and an exception label/condition that matches
    3636certain exceptions.
    3737Only raises inside the guarded region and raising exceptions that match the
    3838label can be handled by a given handler.
    39 Different EHMs have different rules to pick a handler,
    40 if multiple handlers could be used, such as ``best match" or ``first found".
     39Different EHMs use different rules to pick a handler,
     40if multiple handlers could be used such as ``best match" or ``first found".
    4141
    4242The @try@ statements of \Cpp, Java and Python are common examples. All three
    … …  
    4444region.
    4545
    46 \section{Propagation}
     46\subsection{Propagation}
    4747After an exception is raised comes what is usually the biggest step for the
    4848EHM: finding and setting up the handler. The propagation from raise to
    4949handler can be broken up into three different tasks: searching for a handler,
    50 matching against the handler, and installing the handler.
     50matching against the handler and installing the handler.
    5151
    5252\paragraph{Searching}
    … …  
    5555thrown as it looks for handlers that have the raise site in their guarded
    5656region.
    57 This search includes handlers in the current function, as well as any in callers
    58 on the stack that have the function call in their guarded region.
     57The search includes handlers in the current function, as well as any in
     58callers on the stack that have the function call in their guarded region.
    5959
    6060\paragraph{Matching}
    6161Each handler found has to be matched with the raised exception. The exception
    62 label defines a condition that is used with the exception to decide if
     62label defines a condition that is used with exception and decides if
    6363there is a match or not.
    6464
    6565In languages where the first match is used, this step is intertwined with
    66 searching: a match check is performed immediately after the search finds
     66searching; a match check is preformed immediately after the search finds
    6767a possible handler.
    6868
    69 \section{Installing}
     69\paragraph{Installing}
    7070After a handler is chosen it must be made ready to run.
    7171The implementation can vary widely to fit with the rest of the
    … …  
    7878This situation only occurs with unchecked exceptions as checked exceptions
    7979(such as in Java) can make the guarantee.
    80 This unhandled action can abort the program or install a very general handler.
     80This unhandled action is usually very general, such as aborting the program.
    8181
    8282\paragraph{Hierarchy}
    8383A common way to organize exceptions is in a hierarchical structure.
    84 This organization is often used in object-orientated languages where the
     84This pattern comes from object-orientated languages where the
    8585exception hierarchy is a natural extension of the object hierarchy.
    8686
    … …  
    9090\end{center}
    9191
    92 A handler labelled with any given exception can handle exceptions of that
     92A handler labeled with any given exception can handle exceptions of that
    9393type or any child type of that exception. The root of the exception hierarchy
    9494(here \code{C}{exception}) acts as a catch-all, leaf types catch single types
    … …  
    104104% Could I cite the rational for the Python IO exception rework?
    105105
    106 \paragraph{Completion}
     106\subsection{Completion}
    107107After the handler has finished the entire exception operation has to complete
    108108and continue executing somewhere else. This step is usually simple,
    … …  
    111111
    112112The EHM can return control to many different places,
    113 the most common are after the handler definition (termination) and after the raise (resumption).
    114 
    115 \paragraph{Communication}
     113the most common are after the handler definition (termination)
     114and after the raise (resumption).
     115
     116\subsection{Communication}
    116117For effective exception handling, additional information is often passed
    117118from the raise to the handler and back again.
    118119So far only communication of the exceptions' identity has been covered.
    119 A common communication method is putting fields into the exception instance and giving the
    120 handler access to them. References in the exception instance can push data back to the raise.
     120A common communication method is putting fields into the exception instance
     121and giving the handler access to them.
     122Passing the exception by reference instead of by value can allow data to be
     123passed in both directions.
    121124
    122125\section{Virtuals}
    123126Virtual types and casts are not part of \CFA's EHM nor are they required for
    124127any EHM.
    125 However, one of the best ways to support an exception hierarchy is via a virtual system
    126 among exceptions and used for exception matching.
     128However, it is one of the best ways to support an exception hierachy
     129is via a virtual hierarchy and dispatch system.
    127130
    128131Ideally, the virtual system would have been part of \CFA before the work
    129132on exception handling began, but unfortunately it was not.
    130 Therefore, only the features and framework needed for the EHM were
     133Hence, only the features and framework needed for the EHM were
    131134designed and implemented. Other features were considered to ensure that
    132 the structure could accommodate other desirable features in the future but they were not
    133 implemented.
    134 The rest of this section discusses the implemented subset of the
    135 virtual-system design.
     135the structure could accommodate other desirable features in the future
     136but they were not implemented.
     137The rest of this section will only discuss the implemented subset of the
     138virtual system design.
    136139
    137140The virtual system supports multiple ``trees" of types. Each tree is
    … …  
    143146% A type's ancestors are its parent and its parent's ancestors.
    144147% The root type has no ancestors.
    145 % A type's decedents are its children and its children's decedents.
     148% A type's descendants are its children and its children's descendants.
    146149
    147150Every virtual type also has a list of virtual members. Children inherit
    … …  
    150153of object-orientated programming, and can be of any type.
    151154
    152 \PAB{I do not understand these sentences. Can you add an example? $\Rightarrow$
    153155\CFA still supports virtual methods as a special case of virtual members.
    154156Function pointers that take a pointer to the virtual type are modified
    155157with each level of inheritance so that refers to the new type.
    156158This means an object can always be passed to a function in its virtual table
    157 as if it were a method.}
     159as if it were a method.
     160\todo{Clarify (with an example) virtual methods.}
    158161
    159162Each virtual type has a unique id.
    … …  
    161164into a virtual table type. Each virtual type has a pointer to a virtual table
    162165as a hidden field.
    163 
    164 \PAB{God forbid, maybe you need a UML diagram to relate these entities.}
     166\todo{Might need a diagram for virtual structure.}
    165167
    166168Up until this point the virtual system is similar to ones found in
    … …  
    173175types can begin to satisfy a trait, stop satisfying a trait or satisfy the same
    174176trait in a different way at any lexical location in the program.
    175 In this sense, they are ``open" as they can change at any time. This capability means it
    176 is impossible to pick a single set of functions that represent the type's
    177 implementation across the program.
     177In this sense, they are ``open" as they can change at any time.
     178This capability means it is impossible to pick a single set of functions
     179that represent the type's implementation across the program.
    178180
    179181\CFA side-steps this issue by not having a single virtual table for each
    180182type. A user can define virtual tables that are filled in at their
    181 declaration and given a name. Anywhere that name is visible, even if
     183declaration and given a name. Anywhere that name is visible, even if it is
    182184defined locally inside a function (although that means it does not have a
    183185static lifetime), it can be used.
    … …  
    186188through the object.
    187189
    188 \PAB{The above explanation is very good!}
    189 
    190190While much of the virtual infrastructure is created, it is currently only used
    191191internally for exception handling. The only user-level feature is the virtual
    192 cast
     192cast, which is the same as the \Cpp \code{C++}{dynamic_cast}.
    193193\label{p:VirtualCast}
    194194\begin{cfa}
    195195(virtual TYPE)EXPRESSION
    196196\end{cfa}
    197 which is the same as the \Cpp \code{C++}{dynamic_cast}.
    198197Note, the syntax and semantics matches a C-cast, rather than the function-like
    199198\Cpp syntax for special casts. Both the type of @EXPRESSION@ and @TYPE@ must be
    … …  
    218217The trait is defined over two types, the exception type and the virtual table
    219218type. Each exception type should have a single virtual table type.
    220 There are no actual assertions in this trait because currently the trait system
    221 cannot express them (adding such assertions would be part of
     219There are no actual assertions in this trait because the trait system
     220cannot express them yet (adding such assertions would be part of
    222221completing the virtual system). The imaginary assertions would probably come
    223222from a trait defined by the virtual system, and state that the exception type
    224 is a virtual type, is a descendent of @exception_t@ (the base exception type)
     223is a virtual type, is a descendant of @exception_t@ (the base exception type)
    225224and note its virtual table type.
    226225
    … …  
    241240};
    242241\end{cfa}
    243 Both traits ensure a pair of types are an exception type and its virtual table,
     242Both traits ensure a pair of types are an exception type, its virtual table
     243type
    244244and defines one of the two default handlers. The default handlers are used
    245245as fallbacks and are discussed in detail in \vref{s:ExceptionHandling}.
    … …  
    269269\section{Exception Handling}
    270270\label{s:ExceptionHandling}
    271 As stated, \CFA provides two kinds of exception handling: termination and resumption.
     271As stated,
     272\CFA provides two kinds of exception handling: termination and resumption.
    272273These twin operations are the core of \CFA's exception handling mechanism.
    273 This section covers the general patterns shared by the two operations and
    274 then go on to cover the details of each individual operation.
     274This section will cover the general patterns shared by the two operations and
     275then go on to cover the details each individual operation.
    275276
    276277Both operations follow the same set of steps.
    277 Both start with the user performing a raise on an exception.
     278Both start with the user preforming a raise on an exception.
    278279Then the exception propagates up the stack.
    279280If a handler is found the exception is caught and the handler is run.
    280 After that control returns to a point specific to the kind of exception.
    281 If the search fails a default handler is run, and if it returns, control
    282 continues after the raise. Note, the default handler may further change control flow rather than return.
     281After that control continues at a raise-dependent location.
     282If the search fails a default handler is run and, if it returns, then control
     283continues after the raise.
    283284
    284285This general description covers what the two kinds have in common.
    285 Differences include how propagation is performed, where exception continues
     286Differences include how propagation is preformed, where exception continues
    286287after an exception is caught and handled and which default handler is run.
    287288
    288289\subsection{Termination}
    289290\label{s:Termination}
    290 
    291291Termination handling is the familiar kind and used in most programming
    292292languages with exception handling.
    … …  
    313313
    314314The throw copies the provided exception into managed memory to ensure
    315 the exception is not destroyed when the stack is unwound.
     315the exception is not destroyed if the stack is unwound.
    316316It is the user's responsibility to ensure the original exception is cleaned
    317317up whether the stack is unwound or not. Allocating it on the stack is
    318318usually sufficient.
    319319
    320 Then propagation starts the search. \CFA uses a ``first match" rule so
    321 matching is performed with the copied exception as the search continues.
    322 It starts from the throwing function and proceeds towards the base of the stack,
     320% How to say propagation starts, its first sub-step is the search.
     321Then propagation starts with the search. \CFA uses a ``first match" rule so
     322matching is preformed with the copied exception as the search continues.
     323It starts from the throwing function and proceeds towards base of the stack,
    323324from callee to caller.
    324325At each stack frame, a check is made for resumption handlers defined by the
    … …  
    334335\end{cfa}
    335336When viewed on its own, a try statement simply executes the statements
    336 in \snake{GUARDED_BLOCK} and when those are finished, the try statement finishes.
     337in \snake{GUARDED_BLOCK} and when those are finished,
     338the try statement finishes.
    337339
    338340However, while the guarded statements are being executed, including any
    339 invoked functions, all the handlers in these statements are included on the search
    340 path. Hence, if a termination exception is raised, the search includes the added handlers associated with the guarded block and those further up the
    341 stack from the guarded block.
     341invoked functions, all the handlers in these statements are included in the
     342search path.
     343Hence, if a termination exception is raised these handlers may be matched
     344against the exception and may handle it.
    342345
    343346Exception matching checks the handler in each catch clause in the order
    344347they appear, top to bottom. If the representation of the raised exception type
    345348is the same or a descendant of @EXCEPTION_TYPE@$_i$ then @NAME@$_i$
    346 (if provided) is bound to a pointer to the exception and the statements in
    347 @HANDLER_BLOCK@$_i$ are executed.
    348 If control reaches the end of the handler, the exception is
     349(if provided) is
     350bound to a pointer to the exception and the statements in @HANDLER_BLOCK@$_i$
     351are executed. If control reaches the end of the handler, the exception is
    349352freed and control continues after the try statement.
    350353
    351 If no termination handler is found during the search, the default handler
    352 (\defaultTerminationHandler) visible at the raise statement is called.
    353 Through \CFA's trait system, the best match at the raise sight is used.
    354 This function is run and is passed the copied exception. If the default
    355 handler returns, control continues after the throw statement.
     354If no termination handler is found during the search then the default handler
     355(\defaultTerminationHandler) visible at the raise statement is run.
     356Through \CFA's trait system the best match at the raise statement will be used.
     357This function is run and is passed the copied exception.
     358If the default handler is run control continues after the raise statement.
    356359
    357360There is a global @defaultTerminationHandler@ that is polymorphic over all
    358 termination exception types. Since it is so general, a more specific handler can be
     361termination exception types.
     362Since it is so general a more specific handler can be
    359363defined and is used for those types, effectively overriding the handler
    360364for a particular exception type.
    … …  
    370374matched a closure is taken from up the stack and executed,
    371375after which the raising function continues executing.
    372 These are most often used when a potentially repairable error occurs, some handler is found on the stack to fix it, and
    373 the raising function can continue with the correction.
    374 Another common usage is dynamic event analysis, \eg logging, without disrupting control flow.
    375 Note, if an event is raised and there is no interest, control continues normally.
    376 
    377 \PAB{We also have \lstinline{report} instead of \lstinline{throwResume}, \lstinline{recover} instead of \lstinline{catch}, and \lstinline{fixup} instead of \lstinline{catchResume}.
    378 You may or may not want to mention it. You can still stick with \lstinline{catch} and \lstinline{throw/catchResume} in the thesis.}
     376The common uses for resumption exceptions include
     377potentially repairable errors, where execution can continue in the same
     378function once the error is corrected, and
     379ignorable events, such as logging where nothing needs to happen and control
     380should always continue from the same place.
    379381
    380382A resumption raise is started with the @throwResume@ statement:
    … …  
    382384throwResume EXPRESSION;
    383385\end{cfa}
     386\todo{Decide on a final set of keywords and use them everywhere.}
    384387It works much the same way as the termination throw.
    385388The expression must return a reference to a resumption exception,
    … …  
    387390@is_resumption_exception@ at the call site.
    388391The assertions from this trait are available to
    389 the exception system, while handling the exception.
    390 
    391 Resumption does not need to copy the raised exception, as the stack is not unwound.
    392 The exception and
    393 any values on the stack remain in scope, while the resumption is handled.
    394 
    395 The EHM then begins propogation. The search starts from the raise in the
    396 resuming function and proceeds towards the base of the stack, from callee to caller.
     392the exception system while handling the exception.
     393
     394At run-time, no exception copy is made.
     395Resumption does not unwind the stack nor otherwise remove values from the
     396current scope, so there is no need to manage memory to keep things in scope.
     397
     398The EHM then begins propagation. The search starts from the raise in the
     399resuming function and proceeds towards the base of the stack,
     400from callee to caller.
    397401At each stack frame, a check is made for resumption handlers defined by the
    398402@catchResume@ clauses of a @try@ statement.
    … …  
    412416kind of raise.
    413417When a try statement is executed, it simply executes the statements in the
    414 @GUARDED_BLOCK@ and then returns.
     418@GUARDED_BLOCK@ and then finishes.
    415419
    416420However, while the guarded statements are being executed, including any
    417 invoked functions, all the handlers in these statements are included on the search
    418 path. Hence, if a resumption exception is raised the search includes the added handlers associated with the guarded block and those further up the
    419 stack from the guarded block.
     421invoked functions, all the handlers in these statements are included in the
     422search path.
     423Hence, if a resumption exception is raised these handlers may be matched
     424against the exception and may handle it.
    420425
    421426Exception matching checks the handler in each catch clause in the order
    … …  
    427432the raise statement that raised the handled exception.
    428433
    429 Like termination, if no resumption handler is found during the search, the default handler
    430 (\defaultResumptionHandler) visible at the raise statement is called.
    431 It uses the best match at the
    432 raise sight according to \CFA's overloading rules. The default handler is
    433 passed the exception given to the throw. When the default handler finishes
     434Like termination, if no resumption handler is found during the search,
     435the default handler (\defaultResumptionHandler) visible at the raise
     436statement is called. It will use the best match at the raise sight according
     437to \CFA's overloading rules. The default handler is
     438passed the exception given to the raise. When the default handler finishes
    434439execution continues after the raise statement.
    435440
    436 There is a global \defaultResumptionHandler{} that is polymorphic over all
    437 resumption exception types and preforms a termination throw on the exception.
    438 The \defaultTerminationHandler{} can be
    439 customized by introducing a new or better match as well.
     441There is a global \defaultResumptionHandler{} is polymorphic over all
     442resumption exceptions and preforms a termination throw on the exception.
     443The \defaultTerminationHandler{} can be overriden by providing a new
     444function that is a better match.
    440445
    441446\subsubsection{Resumption Marking}
    442447\label{s:ResumptionMarking}
    443 
    444448A key difference between resumption and termination is that resumption does
    445449not unwind the stack. A side effect that is that when a handler is matched
    446 and run, its try block (the guarded statements) and every try statement
    447 searched before it are still on the stack. Their existence can lead to the recursive
    448 resumption problem.
     450and run it's try block (the guarded statements) and every try statement
     451searched before it are still on the stack. There presence can lead to
     452the recursive resumption problem.
    449453
    450454The recursive resumption problem is any situation where a resumption handler
    … …  
    459463\end{cfa}
    460464When this code is executed, the guarded @throwResume@ starts a
    461 search and matchs the handler in the @catchResume@ clause. This
    462 call is placed on the top of stack above the try-block. The second throw
    463 searchs the same try block and puts call another instance of the
    464 same handler on the stack leading to an infinite recursion.
     465search and matches the handler in the @catchResume@ clause. This
     466call is placed on the stack above the try-block. The second raise then
     467searches the same try block and puts another instance of the
     468same handler on the stack leading to infinite recursion.
    465469
    466470While this situation is trivial and easy to avoid, much more complex cycles
    467471can form with multiple handlers and different exception types.
    468472
    469 To prevent all of these cases, the exception search marks the try statements it visits.
    470 A try statement is marked when a match check is preformed with it and an
    471 exception. The statement is unmarked when the handling of that exception
    472 is completed or the search completes without finding a handler.
    473 While a try statement is marked, its handlers are never matched, effectify
    474 skipping over them to the next try statement.
     473To prevent all of these cases, a each try statement is ``marked" from the
     474time the exception search reaches it to either when the exception is being
     475handled completes the matching handler or when the search reaches the base
     476of the stack.
     477While a try statement is marked, its handlers are never matched, effectively
     478skipping over it to the next try statement.
    475479
    476480\begin{center}
    … …  
    478482\end{center}
    479483
    480 These rules mirror what happens with termination.
    481 When a termination throw happens in a handler, the search does not look at
    482 any handlers from the original throw to the original catch because that
    483 part of the stack is unwound.
    484 A resumption raise in the same situation wants to search the entire stack,
    485 but with marking, the search does match exceptions for try statements at equivalent sections
    486 that would have been unwound by termination.
    487 
    488 The symmetry between resumption termination is why this pattern is picked.
    489 Other patterns, such as marking just the handlers that caught the exception, also work but
    490 lack the symmetry, meaning there are more rules to remember.
     484There are other sets of marking rules that could be used,
     485for instance, marking just the handlers that caught the exception,
     486would also prevent recursive resumption.
     487However, these rules mirror what happens with termination.
     488
     489The try statements that are marked are the ones that would be removed from
     490the stack if this was a termination exception, that is those on the stack
     491between the handler and the raise statement.
     492This symmetry applies to the default handler as well, as both kinds of
     493default handlers are run at the raise statement, rather than (physically
     494or logically) at the bottom of the stack.
     495% In early development having the default handler happen after
     496% unmarking was just more useful. We assume that will continue.
    491497
    492498\section{Conditional Catch}
    493 
    494499Both termination and resumption handler clauses can be given an additional
    495500condition to further control which exceptions they handle:
    … …  
    504509did not match.
    505510
    506 The condition matching allows finer matching to check
     511The condition matching allows finer matching by checking
    507512more kinds of information than just the exception type.
    508513\begin{cfa}
    … …  
    519524// Can't handle a failure relating to f2 here.
    520525\end{cfa}
    521 In this example, the file that experianced the IO error is used to decide
     526In this example the file that experienced the IO error is used to decide
    522527which handler should be run, if any at all.
    523528
    … …  
    548553
    549554\subsection{Comparison with Reraising}
    550 
    551555A more popular way to allow handlers to match in more detail is to reraise
    552556the exception after it has been caught, if it could not be handled here.
    553 On the surface these two features seem interchangable.
    554 
    555 If @throw@ is used to start a termination reraise then these two statements
    556 have the same behaviour:
     557On the surface these two features seem interchangeable.
     558
     559If @throw;@ (no argument) starts a termination reraise,
     560which is the same as a raise but reuses the last caught exception,
     561then these two statements have the same behaviour:
    557562\begin{cfa}
    558563try {
    … …  
    574579}
    575580\end{cfa}
    576 However, if there are further handlers after this handler only the first is
    577 check. For multiple handlers on a single try block that could handle the
    578 same exception, the equivalent translations to conditional catch becomes more complex, resulting is multiple nested try blocks for all possible reraises.
    579 So while catch-with-reraise is logically equivilant to conditional catch, there is a lexical explosion for the former.
    580 
    581 \PAB{I think the following discussion makes an incorrect assumption.
    582 A conditional catch CAN happen with the stack unwound.
    583 Roy talked about this issue in Section 2.3.3 here: \newline
    584 \url{http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/theses/KrischerThesis.pdf}}
    585 
    586 Specifically for termination handling, a
    587 conditional catch happens before the stack is unwound, but a reraise happens
    588 afterwards. Normally this might only cause you to loose some debug
    589 information you could get from a stack trace (and that can be side stepped
    590 entirely by collecting information during the unwind). But for \CFA there is
    591 another issue, if the exception is not handled the default handler should be
    592 run at the site of the original raise.
    593 
    594 There are two problems with this: the site of the original raise does not
    595 exist anymore and the default handler might not exist anymore. The site is
    596 always removed as part of the unwinding, often with the entirety of the
    597 function it was in. The default handler could be a stack allocated nested
    598 function removed during the unwind.
    599 
    600 This means actually trying to pretend the catch didn't happening, continuing
    601 the original raise instead of starting a new one, is infeasible.
    602 That is the expected behaviour for most languages and we can't replicate
    603 that behaviour.
     581That is, they will have the same behaviour in isolation.
     582Two things can expose differences between these cases.
     583
     584One is the existance of multiple handlers on a single try statement.
     585A reraise skips all later handlers on this try statement but a conditional
     586catch does not.
     587Hence, if an earlier handler contains a reraise later handlers are
     588implicitly skipped, with a conditional catch they are not.
     589Still, they are equivalently powerful,
     590both can be used two mimick the behaviour of the other,
     591as reraise can pack arbitrary code in the handler and conditional catches
     592can put arbitrary code in the predicate.
     593% I was struggling with a long explination about some simple solutions,
     594% like repeating a condition on later handlers, and the general solution of
     595% merging everything together. I don't think it is useful though unless its
     596% for a proof.
     597% https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/throw
     598
     599The question then becomes ``Which is a better default?"
     600We believe that not skipping possibly useful handlers is a better default.
     601If a handler can handle an exception it should and if the handler can not
     602handle the exception then it is probably safer to have that explicitly
     603described in the handler itself instead of implicitly described by its
     604ordering with other handlers.
     605% Or you could just alter the semantics of the throw statement. The handler
     606% index is in the exception so you could use it to know where to start
     607% searching from in the current try statement.
     608% No place for the `goto else;` metaphor.
     609
     610The other issue is all of the discussion above assumes that the only
     611way to tell apart two raises is the exception being raised and the remaining
     612search path.
     613This is not true generally, the current state of the stack can matter in
     614a number of cases, even only for a stack trace after an program abort.
     615But \CFA has a much more significant need of the rest of the stack, the
     616default handlers for both termination and resumption.
     617
     618% For resumption it turns out it is possible continue a raise after the
     619% exception has been caught, as if it hadn't been caught in the first place.
     620This becomes a problem combined with the stack unwinding used in termination
     621exception handling.
     622The stack is unwound before the handler is installed, and hence before any
     623reraises can run. So if a reraise happens the previous stack is gone,
     624the place on the stack where the default handler was supposed to run is gone,
     625if the default handler was a local function it may have been unwound too.
     626There is no reasonable way to restore that information, so the reraise has
     627to be considered as a new raise.
     628This is the strongest advantage conditional catches have over reraising,
     629they happen before stack unwinding and avoid this problem.
     630
     631% The one possible disadvantage of conditional catch is that it runs user
     632% code during the exception search. While this is a new place that user code
     633% can be run destructors and finally clauses are already run during the stack
     634% unwinding.
     635%
     636% https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/exception/current_exception/
     637%   `exception_ptr current_exception() noexcept;`
     638% https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0343/
    604639
    605640\section{Finally Clauses}
    606641\label{s:FinallyClauses}
    607 
    608642Finally clauses are used to preform unconditional clean-up when leaving a
    609643scope and are placed at the end of a try statement after any handler clauses:
    … …  
    618652The @FINALLY_BLOCK@ is executed when the try statement is removed from the
    619653stack, including when the @GUARDED_BLOCK@ finishes, any termination handler
    620 finishes, or during an unwind.
     654finishes or during an unwind.
    621655The only time the block is not executed is if the program is exited before
    622656the stack is unwound.
    … …  
    634668
    635669Not all languages with unwinding have finally clauses. Notably \Cpp does
    636 without it as destructors with RAII serve a similar role. Although destructors and
    637 finally clauses have overlapping usage cases, they have their own
    638 specializations, like top-level functions and lambda functions with closures.
    639 Destructors take more work if a number of unrelated, local variables without destructors or dynamically allocated variables must be passed for de-intialization.
    640 Maintaining this destructor during local-block modification is a source of errors.
    641 A finally clause places local de-intialization inline with direct access to all local variables.
     670without it as descructors, and the RAII design pattern, serve a similar role.
     671Although destructors and finally clauses can be used in the same cases,
     672they have their own strengths, similar to top-level function and lambda
     673functions with closures.
     674Destructors take more work for their first use, but if there is clean-up code
     675that needs to be run every time a type is used they soon become much easier
     676to set-up.
     677On the other hand finally clauses capture the local context, so is easy to
     678use when the clean-up is not dependent on the type of a variable or requires
     679information from multiple variables.
     680% To Peter: I think these are the main points you were going for.
    642681
    643682\section{Cancellation}
    … …  
    652691raise, this exception is not used in matching only to pass information about
    653692the cause of the cancellation.
    654 (This restriction also means matching cannot fail so there is no default handler.)
     693(This also means matching cannot fail so there is no default handler.)
    655694
    656695After @cancel_stack@ is called the exception is copied into the EHM's memory
    657 and the current stack is
    658 unwound.
    659 The result of a cancellation depends on the kind of stack that is being unwound.
     696and the current stack is unwound.
     697The behaviour after that depends on the kind of stack being cancelled.
    660698
    661699\paragraph{Main Stack}
    … …  
    664702After the main stack is unwound there is a program-level abort.
    665703
    666 There are two reasons for this semantics. The first is that it obviously had to do the abort
     704There are two reasons for these semantics.
     705The first is that it had to do this abort.
    667706in a sequential program as there is nothing else to notify and the simplicity
    668707of keeping the same behaviour in sequential and concurrent programs is good.
    669 \PAB{I do not understand this sentence. $\Rightarrow$ Also, even in concurrent programs, there is no stack that an innate connection
    670 to, so it would have be explicitly managed.}
     708Also, even in concurrent programs there may not currently be any other stacks
     709and even if other stacks do exist, main has no way to know where they are.
    671710
    672711\paragraph{Thread Stack}
    … …  
    680719and an implicit join (from a destructor call). The explicit join takes the
    681720default handler (@defaultResumptionHandler@) from its calling context while
    682 the implicit join provides its own, which does a program abort if the
     721the implicit join provides its own; which does a program abort if the
    683722@ThreadCancelled@ exception cannot be handled.
    684723
    685 \PAB{Communication can occur during the lifetime of a thread using shared variable and \lstinline{waitfor} statements.
    686 Are you sure you mean communication here? Maybe you mean synchronization (rendezvous) point. $\Rightarrow$ Communication is done at join because a thread only has two points of
    687 communication with other threads: start and join.}
     724The communication and synchronization are done here because threads only have
     725two structural points (not dependent on user-code) where
     726communication/synchronization happens: start and join.
    688727Since a thread must be running to perform a cancellation (and cannot be
    689728cancelled from another stack), the cancellation must be after start and
    690 before the join, so join is use.
     729before the join, so join is used.
    691730
    692731% TODO: Find somewhere to discuss unwind collisions.
    … …  
    701740satisfies the @is_coroutine@ trait.
    702741After a coroutine stack is unwound, control returns to the @resume@ function
    703 that most recently resumed it. The resume reports a
    704 @CoroutineCancelled@ exception, which contains references to the cancelled
     742that most recently resumed it. @resume@ reports a
     743@CoroutineCancelled@ exception, which contains a references to the cancelled
    705744coroutine and the exception used to cancel it.
    706745The @resume@ function also takes the \defaultResumptionHandler{} from the
    707 caller's context and passes it to the internal cancellation.
     746caller's context and passes it to the internal report.
    708747
    709748A coroutine knows of two other coroutines, its starter and its last resumer.

  • doc/theses/andrew_beach_MMath/intro.tex

    r4f1b8f3f r2f19e03  
    11\chapter{Introduction}
    22
    3 \PAB{Stay in the present tense. \newline
    4 \url{https://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~pabuhr/technicalWriting.shtml}}
    5 \newline
    6 \PAB{Note, \lstinline{lstlisting} normally bolds keywords. None of the keywords in your thesis are bolded.}
    7 
    8 % Talk about Cforall and exceptions generally.
    9 %This thesis goes over the design and implementation of the exception handling
    10 %mechanism (EHM) of
    11 %\CFA (pernounced sea-for-all and may be written Cforall or CFA).
    12 Exception handling provides alternative dynamic inter-function control flow.
     3% The highest level overview of Cforall and EHMs. Get this done right away.
     4This thesis goes over the design and implementation of the exception handling
     5mechanism (EHM) of
     6\CFA (pernounced sea-for-all and may be written Cforall or CFA).
     7
     8% Now take a step back and explain what exceptions are generally.
     9Exception handling provides dynamic inter-function control flow.
    1310There are two forms of exception handling covered in this thesis:
    1411termination, which acts as a multi-level return,
    1512and resumption, which is a dynamic function call.
    16 Note, termination exception handling is so common it is often assumed to be the only form.
    17 Lesser know derivations of inter-function control flow are continuation passing in Lisp~\cite{CommonLisp}.
     13Termination handling is much more common,
     14to the extent that it is often seen
     15This seperation is uncommon because termination exception handling is so
     16much more common that it is often assumed.
     17% WHY: Mention other forms of continuation and \cite{CommonLisp} here?
     18A language's EHM is the combination of language syntax and run-time
     19components that are used to construct, raise and handle exceptions,
     20including all control flow.
    1821
    1922Termination exception handling allows control to return to any previous
    … …  
    3538most of the cost only when the error actually occurs.
    3639
    37 % Overview of exceptions in Cforall.
    38 
    39 \PAB{You need section titles here. Don't take them out.}
    40 
    4140\section{Thesis Overview}
    42 
    43 This thesis goes over the design and implementation of the exception handling
    44 mechanism (EHM) of
    45 \CFA (pernounced sea-for-all and may be written Cforall or CFA).
    46 %This thesis describes the design and implementation of the \CFA EHM.
     41This work describes the design and implementation of the \CFA EHM.
    4742The \CFA EHM implements all of the common exception features (or an
    4843equivalent) found in most other EHMs and adds some features of its own.
    … …  
    7772harder to replicate in other programming languages.
    7873
    79 \section{Background}
    80 
    8174% Talk about other programming languages.
    8275Some existing programming languages that include EHMs/exception handling
    … …  
    8578Exceptions also can replace return codes and return unions.
    8679In functional languages will also sometimes fold exceptions into monads.
    87 
    88 \PAB{You must demonstrate knowledge of background material here.
    89 It should be at least a full page.}
    90 
    91 \section{Contributions}
    9280
    9381The contributions of this work are:
    … …  
    10290\end{enumerate}
    10391
    104 \todo{I can't figure out a good lead-in to the overview.}
    105 Covering the existing \CFA features in \autoref{c:existing}.
    106 Then the new features are introduce in \autoref{c:features}, explaining their
    107 usage and design.
     92\todo{I can't figure out a good lead-in to the roadmap.}
     93The next section covers the existing state of exceptions.
     94The existing state of \CFA is also covered in \autoref{c:existing}.
     95The new features are introduced in \autoref{c:features},
     96which explains their usage and design.
    10897That is followed by the implementation of those features in
    10998\autoref{c:implement}.
    110 % Future Work \autoref{c:future}
     99The performance results are examined in \autoref{c:performance}.
     100Possibilities to extend this project are discussed in \autoref{c:future}.
     101
     102\section{Background}
     103\label{s:background}
     104
     105Exception handling is not a new concept,
     106with papers on the subject dating back 70s.
     107
     108Their were popularised by \Cpp,
     109which added them in its first major wave of non-object-orientated features
     110in 1990.
     111% https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/history
     112
     113Java was the next popular language to use exceptions. It is also the most
     114popular language with checked exceptions.
     115Checked exceptions are part of the function interface they are raised from.
     116This includes functions they propogate through, until a handler for that
     117type of exception is found.
     118This makes exception information explicit, which can improve clarity and
     119safety, but can slow down programming.
     120Some of these, such as dealing with high-order methods or an overly specified
     121throws clause, are technical. However some of the issues are much more
     122human, in that writing/updating all the exception signatures can be enough
     123of a burden people will hack the system to avoid them.
     124Including the ``catch-and-ignore" pattern where a catch block is used without
     125anything to repair or recover from the exception.
     126
     127%\subsection
     128Resumption exceptions have been much less popular.
     129Although resumption has a history as old as termination's, very few
     130programming languages have implement them.
     131% http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/xerox/parc/techReports/
     132%   CSL-79-3_Mesa_Language_Manual_Version_5.0.pdf
     133Mesa is one programming languages that did and experiance with that
     134languages is quoted as being one of the reasons resumptions were not
     135included in the \Cpp standard.
     136% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_handling
     137\todo{A comment about why we did include them when they are so unpopular
     138might be approprate.}
     139
     140%\subsection
     141Functional languages, tend to use solutions like the return union, but some
     142exception-like constructs still appear.
     143
     144For instance Haskell's built in error mechanism can make the result of any
     145expression, including function calls. Any expression that examines an
     146error value will in-turn produce an error. This continues until the main
     147function produces an error or until it is handled by one of the catch
     148functions.
     149
     150%\subsection
     151More recently exceptions seem to be vanishing from newer programming
     152languages.
     153Rust and Go reduce this feature to panics.
     154Panicing is somewhere between a termination exception and a program abort.
     155Notably in Rust a panic can trigger either, a panic may unwind the stack or
     156simply kill the process.
     157% https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/panic/fn.catch_unwind.html
     158Go's panic is much more similar to a termination exception but there is
     159only a catch-all function with \code{Go}{recover()}.
     160So exceptions still are appearing, just in reduced forms.
     161
     162%\subsection
     163Exception handling's most common use cases are in error handling.
     164Here are some other ways to handle errors and comparisons with exceptions.
     165\begin{itemize}
     166\item\emph{Error Codes}:
     167This pattern uses an enumeration (or just a set of fixed values) to indicate
     168that an error has occured and which error it was.
     169
     170There are some issues if a function wants to return an error code and another
     171value. The main issue is that it can be easy to forget checking the error
     172code, which can lead to an error being quitely and implicitly ignored.
     173Some new languages have tools that raise warnings if the return value is
     174discarded to avoid this.
     175It also puts more code on the main execution path.
     176\item\emph{Special Return with Global Store}:
     177A function that encounters an error returns some value indicating that it
     178encountered a value but store which error occured in a fixed global location.
     179
     180Perhaps the C standard @errno@ is the most famous example of this,
     181where some standard library functions will return some non-value (often a
     182NULL pointer) and set @errno@.
     183
     184This avoids the multiple results issue encountered with straight error codes
     185but otherwise many of the same advantages and disadvantages.
     186It does however introduce one other major disadvantage:
     187Everything that uses that global location must agree on all possible errors.
     188\item\emph{Return Union}:
     189Replaces error codes with a tagged union.
     190Success is one tag and the errors are another.
     191It is also possible to make each possible error its own tag and carry its own
     192additional information, but the two branch format is easy to make generic
     193so that one type can be used everywhere in error handling code.
     194
     195This pattern is very popular in functional or semi-functional language,
     196anything with primitive support for tagged unions (or algebraic data types).
     197% We need listing Rust/rust to format code snipits from it.
     198% Rust's \code{rust}{Result<T, E>}
     199
     200The main disadvantage is again it puts code on the main execution path.
     201This is also the first technique that allows for more information about an
     202error, other than one of a fix-set of ids, to be sent.
     203They can be missed but some languages can force that they are checked.
     204It is also implicitly forced in any languages with checked union access.
     205\item\emph{Handler Functions}:
     206On error the function that produced the error calls another function to
     207handle it.
     208The handler function can be provided locally (passed in as an argument,
     209either directly as as a field of a structure/object) or globally (a global
     210variable).
     211
     212C++ uses this as its fallback system if exception handling fails.
     213\snake{std::terminate_handler} and for a time \snake{std::unexpected_handler}
     214
     215Handler functions work a lot like resumption exceptions.
     216The difference is they are more expencive to set up but cheaper to use, and
     217so are more suited to more fequent errors.
     218The exception being global handlers if they are rarely change as the time
     219in both cases strinks towards zero.
     220\end{itemize}
     221
     222%\subsection
     223Because of their cost exceptions are rarely used for hot paths of execution.
     224There is an element of self-fulfilling prophocy here as implementation
     225techniques have been designed to make exceptions cheap to set-up at the cost
     226of making them expencive to use.
     227Still, use of exceptions for other tasks is more common in higher-level
     228scripting languages.
     229An iconic example is Python's StopIteration exception which is thrown by
     230an iterator to indicate that it is exausted. Combined with Python's heavy
     231use of the iterator based for-loop.
     232% https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#StopIteration
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.