Ignore:
File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed

  • doc/rob_thesis/tuples.tex

    rf92aa32 r93afb96  
    22\chapter{Tuples}
    33%======================================================================
     4
     5\section{Introduction}
     6% TODO: named return values are not currently implemented in CFA - tie in with named tuples? (future work)
     7% TODO: no passing input parameters by assignment, instead will have reference types => this is not a very C-like model and greatly complicates syntax for likely little gain (and would cause confusion with already supported return-by-rerefence)
     8% TODO: tuples are allowed in expressions, exact meaning is defined by operator overloading (e.g. can add tuples). An important caveat to note is that it is currently impossible to allow adding two triples but prevent adding a pair with a quadruple (single flattening/structuring conversions are implicit, only total number of components matters). May be able to solve this with more nuanced conversion rules (future work)
     9% TODO: benefits (conclusion) by Till: reduced number of variables and statements; no specified order of execution for multiple assignment (more optimzation freedom); can store parameter lists in variable; MRV routines (natural code); more convenient assignment statements; simple and efficient access of record fields; named return values more legible and efficient in use of storage
    410
    511\section{Multiple-Return-Value Functions}
    … …  
    814This restriction results in code which emulates functions with multiple return values by \emph{aggregation} or by \emph{aliasing}.
    915In the former situation, the function designer creates a record type that combines all of the return values into a single type.
    10 For example, consider a function returning the most frequently occurring letter in a string, and its frequency.
    11 This example is complex enough to illustrate that an array is insufficient, since arrays are homogeneous, and demonstrates a potential pitfall that exists with aliasing.
     16For example, consider a function returning the most frequently occuring letter in a string, and its frequency.
     17% TODO: consider simplifying the example!
     18%   Two things I like about this example:
     19%   * it uses different types to illustrate why an array is insufficient (this is not necessary, but is nice)
     20%   * it's complicated enough to show the uninitialized pitfall that exists in the aliasing example.
     21%   Still, it may be a touch too complicated. Is there a simpler example with these two properties?
    1222\begin{cfacode}
    1323struct mf_ret {
    … …  
    6373const char * str = "hello world";
    6474char ch;                            // pre-allocate return value
    65 int freq = most_frequent(str, &ch); // pass return value as out parameter
     75int freq = most_frequent(str, &ch); // pass return value as parameter
    6676printf("%s -- %d %c\n", str, freq, ch);
    6777\end{cfacode}
    68 Notably, using this approach, the caller is directly responsible for allocating storage for the additional temporary return values, which complicates the call site with a sequence of variable declarations leading up to the call.
     78Notably, using this approach, the caller is directly responsible for allocating storage for the additional temporary return values.
     79This complicates the call site with a sequence of variable declarations leading up to the call.
    6980Also, while a disciplined use of @const@ can give clues about whether a pointer parameter is going to be used as an out parameter, it is not immediately obvious from only the routine signature whether the callee expects such a parameter to be initialized before the call.
    7081Furthermore, while many C routines that accept pointers are designed so that it is safe to pass @NULL@ as a parameter, there are many C routines that are not null-safe.
    … …  
    7990The expression resolution phase of the \CFA translator ensures that the correct form is used depending on the values being returned and the return type of the current function.
    8091A multiple-returning function with return type @T@ can return any expression that is implicitly convertible to @T@.
    81 Using the running example, the @most_frequent@ function can be written using multiple return values as such,
     92Using the running example, the @most_frequent@ function can be written in using multiple return values as such,
    8293\begin{cfacode}
    8394[int, char] most_frequent(const char * str) {
    … …  
    98109}
    99110\end{cfacode}
    100 This approach provides the benefits of compile-time checking for appropriate return statements as in aggregation, but without the required verbosity of declaring a new named type, which precludes the bug seen with out parameters.
     111This approach provides the benefits of compile-time checking for appropriate return statements as in aggregation, but without the required verbosity of declaring a new named type.
    101112
    102113The addition of multiple-return-value functions necessitates a syntax for accepting multiple values at the call-site.
    … …  
    125136In this case, there is only one option for a function named @most_frequent@ that takes a string as input.
    126137This function returns two values, one @int@ and one @char@.
    127 There are four options for a function named @process@, but only two that accept two arguments, and of those the best match is (3), which is also an exact match.
     138There are four options for a function named @process@, but only two which accept two arguments, and of those the best match is (3), which is also an exact match.
    128139This expression first calls @most_frequent("hello world")@, which produces the values @3@ and @'l'@, which are fed directly to the first and second parameters of (3), respectively.
    129140
    … …  
    137148The previous expression has 3 \emph{components}.
    138149Each component in a tuple expression can be any \CFA expression, including another tuple expression.
     150% TODO: Tuple expressions can appear anywhere that any other expression can appear (...?)
    139151The order of evaluation of the components in a tuple expression is unspecified, to allow a compiler the greatest flexibility for program optimization.
    140152It is, however, guaranteed that each component of a tuple expression is evaluated for side-effects, even if the result is not used.
    141153Multiple-return-value functions can equivalently be called \emph{tuple-returning functions}.
     154% TODO: does this statement still apply, and if so to what extent?
     155%   Tuples are a compile-time phenomenon and have little to no run-time presence.
    142156
    143157\subsection{Tuple Variables}
    … …  
    152166These variables can be used in any of the contexts where a tuple expression is allowed, such as in the @printf@ function call.
    153167As in the @process@ example, the components of the tuple value are passed as separate parameters to @printf@, allowing very simple printing of tuple expressions.
    154 One way to access the individual components is with a simple assignment, as in previous examples.
     168If the individual components are required, they can be extracted with a simple assignment, as in previous examples.
    155169\begin{cfacode}
    156170int freq;
    … …  
    240254\label{s:TupleAssignment}
    241255An assignment where the left side of the assignment operator has a tuple type is called tuple assignment.
    242 There are two kinds of tuple assignment depending on whether the right side of the assignment operator has a tuple type or a non-tuple type, called \emph{Multiple} and \emph{Mass} Assignment, respectively.
     256There are two kinds of tuple assignment depending on whether the right side of the assignment operator has a tuple type or a non-tuple type, called Multiple and Mass Assignment, respectively.
    243257\begin{cfacode}
    244258int x;
    … …  
    258272A mass assignment assigns the value $R$ to each $L_i$.
    259273For a mass assignment to be valid, @?=?(&$L_i$, $R$)@ must be a well-typed expression.
    260 These semantics differ from C cascading assignment (e.g. @a=b=c@) in that conversions are applied to $R$ in each individual assignment, which prevents data loss from the chain of conversions that can happen during a cascading assignment.
     274This differs from C cascading assignment (e.g. @a=b=c@) in that conversions are applied to $R$ in each individual assignment, which prevents data loss from the chain of conversions that can happen during a cascading assignment.
    261275For example, @[y, x] = 3.14@ performs the assignments @y = 3.14@ and @x = 3.14@, which results in the value @3.14@ in @y@ and the value @3@ in @x@.
    262276On the other hand, the C cascading assignment @y = x = 3.14@ performs the assignments @x = 3.14@ and @y = x@, which results in the value @3@ in @x@, and as a result the value @3@ in @y@ as well.
    … …  
    274288These semantics allow cascading tuple assignment to work out naturally in any context where a tuple is permitted.
    275289These semantics are a change from the original tuple design in \KWC \cite{Till89}, wherein tuple assignment was a statement that allows cascading assignments as a special case.
    276 Restricting tuple assignment to statements was an attempt to to fix what was seen as a problem with assignment, wherein it can be used in many different locations, such as in function-call argument position.
     290This decision wa made in an attempt to fix what was seen as a problem with assignment, wherein it can be used in many different locations, such as in function-call argument position.
    277291While permitting assignment as an expression does introduce the potential for subtle complexities, it is impossible to remove assignment expressions from \CFA without affecting backwards compatibility.
    278292Furthermore, there are situations where permitting assignment as an expression improves readability by keeping code succinct and reducing repetition, and complicating the definition of tuple assignment puts a greater cognitive burden on the user.
    … …  
    301315void ?{}(S *, S);      // (4)
    302316
    303 [S, S] x = [3, 6.28];  // uses (2), (3), specialized constructors
    304 [S, S] y;              // uses (1), (1), default constructor
    305 [S, S] z = x.0;        // uses (4), (4), copy constructor
    306 \end{cfacode}
    307 In this example, @x@ is initialized by the multiple constructor calls @?{}(&x.0, 3)@ and @?{}(&x.1, 6.28)@, while @y@ is initialized by two default constructor calls @?{}(&y.0)@ and @?{}(&y.1)@.
     317[S, S] x = [3, 6.28];  // uses (2), (3)
     318[S, S] y;              // uses (1), (1)
     319[S, S] z = x.0;        // uses (4), (4)
     320\end{cfacode}
     321In this example, @x@ is initialized by the multiple constructor calls @?{}(&x.0, 3)@ and @?{}(&x.1, 6.28)@, while @y@ is initilaized by two default constructor calls @?{}(&y.0)@ and @?{}(&y.1)@.
    308322@z@ is initialized by mass copy constructor calls @?{}(&z.0, x.0)@ and @?{}(&z.1, x.0)@.
    309323Finally, @x@, @y@, and @z@ are destructed, i.e. the calls @^?{}(&x.0)@, @^?{}(&x.1)@, @^?{}(&y.0)@, @^?{}(&y.1)@, @^?{}(&z.0)@, and @^?{}(&z.1)@.
    … …  
    325339S s = t;
    326340\end{cfacode}
    327 The initialization of @s@ with @t@ works by default because @t@ is flattened into its components, which satisfies the generated field constructor @?{}(S *, int, double)@ to initialize the first two values.
     341The initialization of @s@ with @t@ works by default, because @t@ is flattened into its components, which satisfies the generated field constructor @?{}(S *, int, double)@ to initialize the first two values.
    328342
    329343\section{Member-Access Tuple Expression}
    … …  
    340354Then the type of @a.[x, y, z]@ is @[T_x, T_y, T_z]@.
    341355
    342 Since tuple index expressions are a form of member-access expression, it is possible to use tuple-index expressions in conjunction with member tuple expressions to manually restructure a tuple (e.g., rearrange components, drop components, duplicate components, etc.).
     356Since tuple index expressions are a form of member-access expression, it is possible to use tuple-index expressions in conjunction with member tuple expressions to manually restructure a tuple (e.g. rearrange components, drop components, duplicate components, etc.).
    343357\begin{cfacode}
    344358[int, int, long, double] x;
    … …  
    370384Since \CFA permits these tuple-access expressions using structures, unions, and tuples, \emph{member tuple expression} or \emph{field tuple expression} is more appropriate.
    371385
    372 It is possible to extend member-access expressions further.
     386It could be possible to extend member-access expressions further.
    373387Currently, a member-access expression whose member is a name requires that the aggregate is a structure or union, while a constant integer member requires the aggregate to be a tuple.
    374388In the interest of orthogonal design, \CFA could apply some meaning to the remaining combinations as well.
    … …  
    384398z.y;  // ???
    385399\end{cfacode}
    386 One possibility is for @s.1@ to select the second member of @s@.
     400One possiblity is for @s.1@ to select the second member of @s@.
    387401Under this interpretation, it becomes possible to not only access members of a struct by name, but also by position.
    388402Likewise, it seems natural to open this mechanism to enumerations as well, wherein the left side would be a type, rather than an expression.
    389 One benefit of this interpretation is familiarity, since it is extremely reminiscent of tuple-index expressions.
     403One benefit of this interpretation is familiar, since it is extremely reminiscent of tuple-index expressions.
    390404On the other hand, it could be argued that this interpretation is brittle in that changing the order of members or adding new members to a structure becomes a brittle operation.
    391 This problem is less of a concern with tuples, since modifying a tuple affects only the code that directly uses the tuple, whereas modifying a structure has far reaching consequences for every instance of the structure.
    392 
    393 As for @z.y@, one interpretation is to extend the meaning of member tuple expressions.
     405This problem is less of a concern with tuples, since modifying a tuple affects only the code which directly uses that tuple, whereas modifying a structure has far reaching consequences with every instance of the structure.
     406
     407As for @z.y@, a natural interpretation would be to extend the meaning of member tuple expressions.
    394408That is, currently the tuple must occur as the member, i.e. to the right of the dot.
    395409Allowing tuples to the left of the dot could distribute the member across the elements of the tuple, in much the same way that member tuple expressions distribute the aggregate across the member tuple.
    396410In this example, @z.y@ expands to @[z.0.y, z.1.y]@, allowing what is effectively a very limited compile-time field-sections map operation, where the argument must be a tuple containing only aggregates having a member named @y@.
    397 It is questionable how useful this would actually be in practice, since structures often do not have names in common with other structures, and further this could cause maintainability issues in that it encourages programmers to adopt very simple naming conventions to maximize the amount of overlap between different types.
     411It is questionable how useful this would actually be in practice, since generally structures are not designed to have names in common with other structures, and further this could cause maintainability issues in that it encourages programmers to adopt very simple naming conventions, to maximize the amount of overlap between different types.
    398412Perhaps more useful would be to allow arrays on the left side of the dot, which would likewise allow mapping a field access across the entire array, producing an array of the contained fields.
    399413The immediate problem with this idea is that C arrays do not carry around their size, which would make it impossible to use this extension for anything other than a simple stack allocated array.
    400414
    401 Supposing this feature works as described, it would be necessary to specify an ordering for the expansion of member-access expressions versus member-tuple expressions.
     415Supposing this feature works as described, it would be necessary to specify an ordering for the expansion of member access expressions versus member tuple expressions.
    402416\begin{cfacode}
    403417struct { int x, y; };
    … …  
    412426\end{cfacode}
    413427Depending on exactly how the two tuples are combined, different results can be achieved.
    414 As such, a specific ordering would need to be imposed to make this feature useful.
    415 Furthermore, this addition moves a member-tuple expression's meaning from being clear statically to needing resolver support, since the member name needs to be distributed appropriately over each member of the tuple, which could itself be a tuple.
    416 
    417 A second possibility is for \CFA to have named tuples, as they exist in Swift and D.
    418 \begin{cfacode}
    419 typedef [int x, int y] Point2D;
    420 Point2D p1, p2;
    421 p1.x + p1.y + p2.x + p2.y;
    422 p1.0 + p1.1 + p2.0 + p2.1;  // equivalent
    423 \end{cfacode}
    424 In this simpler interpretation, a tuple type carries with it a list of possibly empty identifiers.
    425 This approach fits naturally with the named return-value feature, and would likely go a long way towards implementing it.
    426 
    427 Ultimately, the first two extensions introduce complexity into the model, with relatively little perceived benefit, and so were dropped from consideration.
    428 Named tuples are a potentially useful addition to the language, provided they can be parsed with a reasonable syntax.
    429 
     428As such, a specific ordering would need to be imposed in order for this feature to be useful.
     429Furthermore, this addition moves a member tuple expression's meaning from being clear statically to needing resolver support, since the member name needs to be distributed appropriately over each member of the tuple, which could itself be a tuple.
     430
     431Ultimately, both of these extensions introduce complexity into the model, with relatively little peceived benefit.
    430432
    431433\section{Casting}
    432434In C, the cast operator is used to explicitly convert between types.
    433 In \CFA, the cast operator has a secondary use, which is type ascription, since it force the expression resolution algorithm to choose the lowest cost conversion to the target type.
     435In \CFA, the cast operator has a secondary use, which is type ascription.
    434436That is, a cast can be used to select the type of an expression when it is ambiguous, as in the call to an overloaded function.
    435437\begin{cfacode}
    … …  
    440442(int)f();  // choose (2)
    441443\end{cfacode}
    442 Since casting is a fundamental operation in \CFA, casts need to be given a meaningful interpretation in the context of tuples.
     444Since casting is a fundamental operation in \CFA, casts should be given a meaningful interpretation in the context of tuples.
    443445Taking a look at standard C provides some guidance with respect to the way casts should work with tuples.
    444446\begin{cfacode}[numbers=left]
    … …  
    446448void g();
    447449
    448 (void)f();  // valid, ignore results
    449 (int)g();   // invalid, void cannot be converted to int
     450(void)f();
     451(int)g();
    450452
    451453struct A { int x; };
    452 (struct A)f();  // invalid
     454(struct A)f();
    453455\end{cfacode}
    454456In C, line 4 is a valid cast, which calls @f@ and discards its result.
    455457On the other hand, line 5 is invalid, because @g@ does not produce a result, so requesting an @int@ to materialize from nothing is nonsensical.
    456 Finally, line 8 is also invalid, because in C casts only provide conversion between scalar types \cite[p.~91]{C11}.
    457 For consistency, this implies that any case wherein the number of components increases as a result of the cast is invalid, while casts that have the same or fewer number of components may be valid.
     458Finally, line 8 is also invalid, because in C casts only provide conversion between scalar types \cite{C11}.
     459For consistency, this implies that any case wherein the number of components increases as a result of the cast is invalid, while casts which have the same or fewer number of components may be valid.
    458460
    459461Formally, a cast to tuple type is valid when $T_n \leq S_m$, where $T_n$ is the number of components in the target type and $S_m$ is the number of components in the source type, and for each $i$ in $[0, n)$, $S_i$ can be cast to $T_i$.
    … …  
    507509\end{cfacode}
    508510Note that due to the implicit tuple conversions, this function is not restricted to the addition of two triples.
    509 A call to this plus operator type checks as long as a total of 6 non-tuple arguments are passed after flattening, and all of the arguments have a common type that can bind to @T@, with a pairwise @?+?@ over @T@.
    510 For example, these expressions also succeed and produce the same value.
    511 \begin{cfacode}
    512 ([x.0, x.1]) + ([x.2, 10, 20, 30]);  // x + ([10, 20, 30])
    513 x.0 + ([x.1, x.2, 10, 20, 30]);      // x + ([10, 20, 30])
     511A call to this plus operator type checks as long as a total of 6 non-tuple arguments are passed after flattening, and all of the arguments have a common type which can bind to @T@, with a pairwise @?+?@ over @T@.
     512For example, these expressions will also succeed and produce the same value.
     513\begin{cfacode}
     514([x.0, x.1]) + ([x.2, 10, 20, 30]);
     515x.0 + ([x.1, x.2, 10, 20, 30]);
    514516\end{cfacode}
    515517This presents a potential problem if structure is important, as these three expressions look like they should have different meanings.
    516 Furthermore, these calls can be made ambiguous by introducing seemingly different functions.
     518Further, these calls can be made ambiguous by adding seemingly different functions.
    517519\begin{cfacode}
    518520forall(otype T | { T ?+?(T, T); })
    … …  
    522524\end{cfacode}
    523525It is also important to note that these calls could be disambiguated if the function return types were different, as they likely would be for a reasonable implementation of @?+?@, since the return type is used in overload resolution.
    524 Still, these semantics are a deficiency of the current argument matching algorithm, and depending on the function, differing return values may not always be appropriate.
    525 These issues could be rectified by applying an appropriate cost to the structuring and flattening conversions, which are currently 0-cost conversions.
     526Still, this is a deficiency of the current argument matching algorithm, and depending on the function, differing return values may not always be appropriate.
     527It's possible that this could be rectified by applying an appropriate cost to the structuring and flattening conversions, which are currently 0-cost conversions.
    526528Care would be needed in this case to ensure that exact matches do not incur such a cost.
    527529\begin{cfacode}
    … …  
    534536\end{cfacode}
    535537
    536 Until this point, it has been assumed that assertion arguments must match the parameter type exactly, modulo polymorphic specialization (i.e., no implicit conversions are applied to assertion arguments).
     538Until this point, it has been assumed that assertion arguments must match the parameter type exactly, modulo polymorphic specialization (i.e. no implicit conversions are applied to assertion arguments).
    537539This decision presents a conflict with the flexibility of tuples.
    538540\subsection{Assertion Inference}
    … …  
    615617In the call to @f@, the second and third argument components are structured into a tuple argument.
    616618
    617 Expressions that may contain side effects are made into \emph{unique expressions} before being expanded by the flattening conversion.
     619Expressions which may contain side effects are made into \emph{unique expressions} before being expanded by the flattening conversion.
    618620Each unique expression is assigned an identifier and is guaranteed to be executed exactly once.
    619621\begin{cfacode}
    … …  
    622624g(h());
    623625\end{cfacode}
    624 Internally, this is converted to pseudo-\CFA
     626Interally, this is converted to
    625627\begin{cfacode}
    626628void g(int, double);
    627629[int, double] h();
    628 lazy [int, double] unq0 = h(); // deferred execution
    629 g(unq0.0, unq0.1);             // execute h() once
    630 \end{cfacode}
    631 That is, the function @h@ is evaluated lazily and its result is stored for subsequent accesses.
     630let unq<0> = f() : g(unq<0>.0, unq<0>.1);  // notation?
     631\end{cfacode}
    632632Ultimately, unique expressions are converted into two variables and an expression.
    633633\begin{cfacode}
    … …  
    638638[int, double] _unq0;
    639639g(
    640   (_unq0_finished_ ? _unq0 : (_unq0 = h(), _unq0_finished_ = 1, _unq0)).0,
    641   (_unq0_finished_ ? _unq0 : (_unq0 = h(), _unq0_finished_ = 1, _unq0)).1,
     640  (_unq0_finished_ ? _unq0 : (_unq0 = f(), _unq0_finished_ = 1, _unq0)).0,
     641  (_unq0_finished_ ? _unq0 : (_unq0 = f(), _unq0_finished_ = 1, _unq0)).1,
    642642);
    643643\end{cfacode}
    … …  
    646646Every subsequent evaluation of the unique expression then results in an access to the stored result of the actual expression.
    647647
    648 Currently, the \CFA translator has a very broad, imprecise definition of impurity (side-effects), where every function call is assumed to be impure.
    649 This notion could be made more precise for certain intrinsic, auto-generated, and built-in functions, and could analyze function bodies, when they are available, to recursively detect impurity, to eliminate some unique expressions.
    650 It is possible that lazy evaluation could be exposed to the user through a lazy keyword with little additional effort.
     648Currently, the \CFA translator has a very broad, imprecise definition of impurity, where any function call is assumed to be impure.
     649This notion could be made more precise for certain intrinsic, autogenerated, and builtin functions, and could analyze function bodies when they are available to recursively detect impurity, to eliminate some unique expressions.
     650It's possible that unique expressions could be exposed to the user through a language feature, but it's not immediately obvious that there is a benefit to doing so.
    651651
    652652Tuple member expressions are recursively expanded into a list of member access expressions.
    … …  
    655655x.[0, 1.[0, 2]];
    656656\end{cfacode}
    657 which becomes
     657Which becomes
    658658\begin{cfacode}
    659659[x.0, [x.1.0, x.1.2]];
    660660\end{cfacode}
    661 Tuple-member expressions also take advantage of unique expressions in the case of possible impurity.
     661Tuple member expressions also take advantage of unique expressions in the case of possible impurity.
    662662
    663663Finally, the various kinds of tuple assignment, constructors, and destructors generate GNU C statement expressions.
    … …  
    711711});
    712712\end{cfacode}
    713 A variable is generated to store the value produced by a statement expression, since its fields may need to be constructed with a non-trivial constructor and it may need to be referred to multiple time, e.g., in a unique expression.
     713A variable is generated to store the value produced by a statement expression, since its fields may need to be constructed with a non-trivial constructor and it may need to be referred to multiple time, e.g. in a unique expression.
    714714$N$ LHS variables are generated and constructed using the address of the tuple components, and a single RHS variable is generated to store the value of the RHS without any loss of precision.
    715715A nested statement expression is generated that performs the individual assignments and constructs the return value using the results of the individual assignments.
    … …  
    785785The use of statement expressions allows the translator to arbitrarily generate additional temporary variables as needed, but binds the implementation to a non-standard extension of the C language.
    786786There are other places where the \CFA translator makes use of GNU C extensions, such as its use of nested functions, so this is not a new restriction.
     787
     788\section{Variadic Functions}
     789% TODO: should this maybe be its own chapter?
     790C provides variadic functions through the manipulation of @va_list@ objects.
     791A variadic function is one which contains at least one parameter, followed by @...@ as the last token in the parameter list.
     792In particular, some form of \emph{argument descriptor} is needed to inform the function of the number of arguments and their types.
     793Two common argument descriptors are format strings or and counter parameters.
     794It's important to note that both of these mechanisms are inherently redundant, because they require the user to specify information that the compiler knows explicitly.
     795This required repetition is error prone, because it's easy for the user to add or remove arguments without updating the argument descriptor.
     796In addition, C requires the programmer to hard code all of the possible expected types.
     797As a result, it is cumbersome to write a function that is open to extension.
     798For example, a simple function which sums $N$ @int@s,
     799\begin{cfacode}
     800int sum(int N, ...) {
     801  va_list args;
     802  va_start(args, N);
     803  int ret = 0;
     804  while(N) {
     805    ret += va_arg(args, int);  // have to specify type
     806    N--;
     807  }
     808  va_end(args);
     809  return ret;
     810}
     811sum(3, 10, 20, 30);  // need to keep counter in sync
     812\end{cfacode}
     813The @va_list@ type is a special C data type that abstracts variadic argument manipulation.
     814The @va_start@ macro initializes a @va_list@, given the last named parameter.
     815Each use of the @va_arg@ macro allows access to the next variadic argument, given a type.
     816Since the function signature does not provide any information on what types can be passed to a variadic function, the compiler does not perform any error checks on a variadic call.
     817As such, it is possible to pass any value to the @sum@ function, including pointers, floating-point numbers, and structures.
     818In the case where the provided type is not compatible with the argument's actual type after default argument promotions, or if too many arguments are accessed, the behaviour is undefined \cite{C11}.
     819Furthermore, there is no way to perform the necessary error checks in the @sum@ function at run-time, since type information is not carried into the function body.
     820Since they rely on programmer convention rather than compile-time checks, variadic functions are generally unsafe.
     821
     822In practice, compilers can provide warnings to help mitigate some of the problems.
     823For example, GCC provides the @format@ attribute to specify that a function uses a format string, which allows the compiler to perform some checks related to the standard format specifiers.
     824Unfortunately, this does not permit extensions to the format string syntax, so a programmer cannot extend the attribute to warn for mismatches with custom types.
     825
     826Needless to say, C's variadic functions are a deficient language feature.
     827Two options were examined to provide better, type-safe variadic functions in \CFA.
     828\subsection{Whole Tuple Matching}
     829Option 1 is to change the argument matching algorithm, so that type parameters can match whole tuples, rather than just their components.
     830This option could be implemented with two phases of argument matching when a function contains type parameters and the argument list contains tuple arguments.
     831If flattening and structuring fail to produce a match, a second attempt at matching the function and argument combination is made where tuple arguments are not expanded and structure must match exactly, modulo non-tuple implicit conversions.
     832For example:
     833\begin{cfacode}
     834  forall(otype T, otype U | { T g(U); })
     835  void f(T, U);
     836
     837  [int, int] g([int, int, int, int]);
     838
     839  f([1, 2], [3, 4, 5, 6]);
     840\end{cfacode}
     841With flattening and structuring, the call is first transformed into @f(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)@.
     842Since the first argument of type @T@ does not have a tuple type, unification decides that @T=int@ and @1@ is matched as the first parameter.
     843Likewise, @U@ does not have a tuple type, so @U=int@ and @2@ is accepted as the second parameter.
     844There are now no remaining formal parameters, but there are remaining arguments and the function is not variadic, so the match fails.
     845
     846With the addition of an exact matching attempt, @T=[int,int]@ and @U=[int,int,int,int]@ and so the arguments type check.
     847Likewise, when inferring assertion @g@, an exact match is found.
     848
     849This approach is strict with respect to argument structure by nature, which makes it syntactically awkward to use in ways that the existing tuple design is not.
     850For example, consider a @new@ function which allocates memory using @malloc@ and constructs the result, using arbitrary arguments.
     851\begin{cfacode}
     852struct Array;
     853void ?{}(Array *, int, int, int);
     854
     855forall(dtype T, otype Params | sized(T) | { void ?{}(T *, Params); })
     856T * new(Params p) {
     857  return malloc(){ p };
     858}
     859Array(int) * x = new([1, 2, 3]);
     860\end{cfacode}
     861The call to @new@ is not particularly appealing, since it requires the use of square brackets at the call-site, which is not required in any other function call.
     862This shifts the burden from the compiler to the programmer, which is almost always wrong, and creates an odd inconsistency within the language.
     863Similarly, in order to pass 0 variadic arguments, an explicit empty tuple must be passed into the argument list, otherwise the exact matching rule would not have an argument to bind against.
     864
     865It should be otherwise noted that the addition of an exact matching rule only affects the outcome for polymorphic type binding when tuples are involved.
     866For non-tuple arguments, exact matching and flattening \& structuring are equivalent.
     867For tuple arguments to a function without polymorphic formal parameters, flattening and structuring work whenever an exact match would have worked, since the tuple is flattened and implicitly restructured to its original structure.
     868Thus there is nothing to be gained from permitting the exact matching rule to take effect when a function does not contain polymorphism and none of the arguments are tuples.
     869
     870Overall, this option takes a step in the right direction, but is contrary to the flexibility of the existing tuple design.
     871
     872\subsection{A New Typeclass}
     873A second option is the addition of another kind of type parameter, @ttype@.
     874Matching against a @ttype@ parameter consumes all remaining argument components and packages them into a tuple, binding to the resulting tuple of types.
     875In a given parameter list, there should be at most one @ttype@ parameter that must occur last, otherwise the call can never resolve, given the previous rule.
     876% TODO: a similar rule exists in C/C++ for "..."
     877This idea essentially matches normal variadic semantics, with a strong feeling of similarity to \CCeleven variadic templates.
     878As such, @ttype@ variables will also be referred to as argument packs.
     879This is the option that has been added to \CFA.
     880
     881Like variadic templates, the main way to manipulate @ttype@ polymorphic functions is through recursion.
     882Since nothing is known about a parameter pack by default, assertion parameters are key to doing anything meaningful.
     883Unlike variadic templates, @ttype@ polymorphic functions can be separately compiled.
     884
     885For example, a simple translation of the C sum function using @ttype@ would look like
     886\begin{cfacode}
     887int sum(){ return 0; }        // (0)
     888forall(ttype Params | { int sum(Params); })
     889int sum(int x, Params rest) { // (1)
     890  return x+sum(rest);
     891}
     892sum(10, 20, 30);
     893\end{cfacode}
     894Since (0) does not accept any arguments, it is not a valid candidate function for the call @sum(10, 20, 30)@.
     895In order to call (1), @10@ is matched with @x@, and the argument resolution moves on to the argument pack @rest@, which consumes the remainder of the argument list and @Params@ is bound to @[20, 30]@.
     896In order to finish the resolution of @sum@, an assertion parameter which matches @int sum(int, int)@ is required.
     897Like in the previous iteration, (0) is not a valid candiate, so (1) is examined with @Params@ bound to @[int]@, requiring the assertion @int sum(int)@.
     898Next, (0) fails, and to satisfy (1) @Params@ is bound to @[]@, requiring an assertion @int sum()@.
     899Finally, (0) matches and (1) fails, which terminates the recursion.
     900Effectively, this traces as @sum(10, 20, 30)@ $\rightarrow$ @10+sum(20, 30)@ $\rightarrow$ @10+(20+sum(30))@ $\rightarrow$ @10+(20+(30+sum()))@ $\rightarrow$ @10+(20+(30+0))@.
     901
     902A point of note is that this version does not require any form of argument descriptor, since the \CFA type system keeps track of all of these details.
     903It might be reasonable to take the @sum@ function a step further to enforce a minimum number of arguments, which could be done simply
     904\begin{cfacode}
     905int sum(int x, int y){
     906  return x+y;
     907}
     908forall(ttype Params | { int sum(int, Params); })
     909int sum(int x, int y, Params rest) {
     910  return sum(x+y, rest);
     911}
     912sum(10, 20, 30);
     913\end{cfacode}
     914
     915One more iteration permits the summation of any summable type, as long as all arguments are the same type.
     916\begin{cfacode}
     917trait summable(otype T) {
     918  T ?+?(T, T);
     919};
     920forall(otype R | summable(R))
     921R sum(R x, R y){
     922  return x+y;
     923}
     924forall(otype R, ttype Params
     925  | summable(R)
     926  | { R sum(R, Params); })
     927R sum(R x, R y, Params rest) {
     928  return sum(x+y, rest);
     929}
     930sum(3, 10, 20, 30);
     931\end{cfacode}
     932Unlike C, it is not necessary to hard code the expected type.
     933This is naturally open to extension, in that any user-defined type with a @?+?@ operator is automatically able to be used with the @sum@ function.
     934That is to say, the programmer who writes @sum@ does not need full program knowledge of every possible data type, unlike what is necessary to write an equivalent function using the standard C mechanisms.
     935
     936Going one last step, it is possible to achieve full generality in \CFA, allowing the summation of arbitrary lists of summable types.
     937\begin{cfacode}
     938trait summable(otype T1, otype T2, otype R) {
     939  R ?+?(T1, T2);
     940};
     941forall(otype T1, otype T2, otype R | summable(T1, T2, R))
     942R sum(T1 x, T2 y) {
     943  return x+y;
     944}
     945forall(otype T1, otype T2, otype T3, ttype Params, otype R
     946  | summable(T1, T2, T3)
     947  | { R sum(T3, Params); })
     948R sum(T1 x, T2 y, Params rest ) {
     949  return sum(x+y, rest);
     950}
     951sum(3, 10.5, 20, 30.3);
     952\end{cfacode}
     953The \CFA translator requires adding explicit @double ?+?(int, double)@ and @double ?+?(double, int)@ functions for this call to work, since implicit conversions are not supported for assertions.
     954
     955C variadic syntax and @ttype@ polymorphism probably should not be mixed, since it is not clear where to draw the line to decide which arguments belong where.
     956Furthermore, it might be desirable to disallow polymorphic functions to use C variadic syntax to encourage a Cforall style.
     957Aside from calling C variadic functions, it is not obvious that there is anything that can be done with C variadics that could not also be done with @ttype@ parameters.
     958
     959Variadic templates in \CC require an ellipsis token to express that a parameter is a parameter pack and to expand a parameter pack.
     960\CFA does not need an ellipsis in either case, since the type class @ttype@ is only used for variadics.
     961An alternative design could have used an ellipsis combined with an existing type class.
     962This approach was not taken because the largest benefit of the ellipsis token in \CC is the ability to expand a parameter pack within an expression, e.g. in fold expressions, which requires compile-time knowledge of the structure of the parameter pack, which is not available in \CFA.
     963\begin{cppcode}
     964template<typename... Args>
     965void f(Args &... args) {
     966  g(&args...);  // expand to addresses of pack elements
     967}
     968\end{cppcode}
     969As such, the addition of an ellipsis token would be purely an aesthetic change in \CFA today.
     970
     971It is possible to write a type-safe variadic print routine, which can replace @printf@
     972\begin{cfacode}
     973struct S { int x, y; };
     974forall(otype T, ttype Params |
     975  { void print(T); void print(Params); })
     976void print(T arg, Params rest) {
     977  print(arg);
     978  print(rest);
     979}
     980void print(char * x) { printf("%s", x); }
     981void print(int x) { printf("%d", x);  }
     982void print(S s) { print("{ ", s.x, ",", s.y, " }"); }
     983print("s = ", (S){ 1, 2 }, "\n");
     984\end{cfacode}
     985This example routine showcases a variadic-template-like decomposition of the provided argument list.
     986The individual @print@ routines allow printing a single element of a type.
     987The polymorphic @print@ allows printing any list of types, as long as each individual type has a @print@ function.
     988The individual print functions can be used to build up more complicated @print@ routines, such as for @S@, which is something that cannot be done with @printf@ in C.
     989
     990It is also possible to use @ttype@ polymorphism to provide arbitrary argument forwarding functions.
     991For example, it is possible to write @new@ as a library function.
     992Example 2: new (i.e. type-safe malloc + constructors)
     993\begin{cfacode}
     994struct Array;
     995void ?{}(Array *, int, int, int);
     996
     997forall(dtype T, ttype Params | sized(T) | { void ?{}(T *, Params); })
     998T * new(Params p) {
     999  return malloc(){ p }; // construct result of malloc
     1000}
     1001Array * x = new(1, 2, 3);
     1002\end{cfacode}
     1003The @new@ function provides the combination of type-safe @malloc@ with a constructor call, so that it becomes impossible to forget to construct dynamically allocated objects.
     1004This provides the type-safety of @new@ in \CC, without the need to specify the allocated type, thanks to return-type inference.
     1005
     1006In the call to @new@, @Array@ is selected to match @T@, and @Params@ is expanded to match @[int, int, int, int]@. To satisfy the assertions, a constructor with an interface compatible with @void ?{}(Array *, int, int, int)@ must exist in the current scope.
     1007
     1008\subsection{Implementation}
     1009
     1010The definition of @new@
     1011\begin{cfacode}
     1012forall(dtype T | sized(T)) T * malloc();
     1013
     1014forall(dtype T, ttype Params | sized(T) | { void ?{}(T *, Params); })
     1015T * new(Params p) {
     1016  return malloc(){ p }; // construct result of malloc
     1017}
     1018\end{cfacode}
     1019Generates the following
     1020\begin{cfacode}
     1021void *malloc(long unsigned int _sizeof_T, long unsigned int _alignof_T);
     1022
     1023void *new(
     1024  void (*_adapter_)(void (*)(), void *, void *),
     1025  long unsigned int _sizeof_T,
     1026  long unsigned int _alignof_T,
     1027  long unsigned int _sizeof_Params,
     1028  long unsigned int _alignof_Params,
     1029  void (* _ctor_T)(void *, void *),
     1030  void *p
     1031){
     1032  void *_retval_new;
     1033  void *_tmp_cp_ret0;
     1034  void *_tmp_ctor_expr0;
     1035  _retval_new=
     1036    (_adapter_(_ctor_T,
     1037      (_tmp_ctor_expr0=(_tmp_cp_ret0=malloc(_sizeof_2tT, _alignof_2tT),
     1038        _tmp_cp_ret0)),
     1039      p),
     1040    _tmp_ctor_expr0); // ?{}
     1041  *(void **)&_tmp_cp_ret0; // ^?{}
     1042  return _retval_new;
     1043}
     1044\end{cfacode}
     1045The constructor for @T@ is called indirectly through the adapter function on the result of @malloc@ and the parameter pack.
     1046The variable that was allocated and constructed is then returned from @new@.
     1047
     1048A call to @new@
     1049\begin{cfacode}
     1050struct S { int x, y; };
     1051void ?{}(S *, int, int);
     1052
     1053S * s = new(3, 4);
     1054\end{cfacode}
     1055Generates the following
     1056\begin{cfacode}
     1057struct _tuple2_ {  // _tuple2_(T0, T1)
     1058  void *field_0;
     1059  void *field_1;
     1060};
     1061struct _conc__tuple2_0 {  // _tuple2_(int, int)
     1062  int field_0;
     1063  int field_1;
     1064};
     1065struct _conc__tuple2_0 _tmp_cp1;  // tuple argument to new
     1066struct S *_tmp_cp_ret1;           // return value from new
     1067void _thunk0(  // ?{}(S *, [int, int])
     1068  struct S *_p0,
     1069  struct _conc__tuple2_0 _p1
     1070){
     1071  _ctor_S(_p0, _p1.field_0, _p1.field_1);  // restructure tuple parameter
     1072}
     1073void _adapter(void (*_adaptee)(), void *_p0, void *_p1){
     1074  // apply adaptee to arguments after casting to actual types
     1075  ((void (*)(struct S *, struct _conc__tuple2_0))_adaptee)(
     1076    _p0,
     1077    *(struct _conc__tuple2_0 *)_p1
     1078  );
     1079}
     1080struct S *s = (struct S *)(_tmp_cp_ret1=
     1081  new(
     1082    _adapter,
     1083    sizeof(struct S),
     1084    __alignof__(struct S),
     1085    sizeof(struct _conc__tuple2_0),
     1086    __alignof__(struct _conc__tuple2_0),
     1087    (void (*)(void *, void *))&_thunk0,
     1088    (({ // copy construct tuple argument to new
     1089      int *__multassign_L0 = (int *)&_tmp_cp1.field_0;
     1090      int *__multassign_L1 = (int *)&_tmp_cp1.field_1;
     1091      int __multassign_R0 = 3;
     1092      int __multassign_R1 = 4;
     1093      ((*__multassign_L0=__multassign_R0 /* ?{} */) ,
     1094       (*__multassign_L1=__multassign_R1 /* ?{} */));
     1095    }), &_tmp_cp1)
     1096  ), _tmp_cp_ret1);
     1097*(struct S **)&_tmp_cp_ret1; // ^?{}  // destroy return value from new
     1098({  // destroy argument temporary
     1099  int *__massassign_L0 = (int *)&_tmp_cp1.field_0;
     1100  int *__massassign_L1 = (int *)&_tmp_cp1.field_1;
     1101  ((*__massassign_L0 /* ^?{} */) , (*__massassign_L1 /* ^?{} */));
     1102});
     1103\end{cfacode}
     1104Of note, @_thunk0@ is generated to translate calls to @?{}(S *, [int, int])@ into calls to @?{}(S *, int, int)@.
     1105The call to @new@ constructs a tuple argument using the supplied arguments.
     1106
     1107The @print@ function
     1108\begin{cfacode}
     1109forall(otype T, ttype Params |
     1110  { void print(T); void print(Params); })
     1111void print(T arg, Params rest) {
     1112  print(arg);
     1113  print(rest);
     1114}
     1115\end{cfacode}
     1116Generates
     1117\begin{cfacode}
     1118void print_variadic(
     1119  void (*_adapterF_7tParams__P)(void (*)(), void *),
     1120  void (*_adapterF_2tT__P)(void (*)(), void *),
     1121  void (*_adapterF_P2tT2tT__MP)(void (*)(), void *, void *),
     1122  void (*_adapterF2tT_P2tT2tT_P_MP)(void (*)(), void *, void *, void *),
     1123  long unsigned int _sizeof_T,
     1124  long unsigned int _alignof_T,
     1125  long unsigned int _sizeof_Params,
     1126  long unsigned int _alignof_Params,
     1127  void *(*_assign_TT)(void *, void *),
     1128  void (*_ctor_T)(void *),
     1129  void (*_ctor_TT)(void *, void *),
     1130  void (*_dtor_T)(void *),
     1131  void (*print_T)(void *),
     1132  void (*print_Params)(void *),
     1133  void *arg,
     1134  void *rest
     1135){
     1136  void *_tmp_cp0 = __builtin_alloca(_sizeof_T);
     1137  _adapterF_2tT__P(  // print(arg)
     1138    ((void (*)())print_T),
     1139    (_adapterF_P2tT2tT__MP( // copy construct argument
     1140      ((void (*)())_ctor_TT),
     1141      _tmp_cp0,
     1142      arg
     1143    ), _tmp_cp0)
     1144  );
     1145  _dtor_T(_tmp_cp0);  // destroy argument temporary
     1146  _adapterF_7tParams__P(  // print(rest)
     1147    ((void (*)())print_Params),
     1148    rest
     1149  );
     1150}
     1151\end{cfacode}
     1152The @print_T@ routine is called indirectly through an adapter function with a copy constructed argument, followed by an indirect call to @print_Params@.
     1153
     1154A call to print
     1155\begin{cfacode}
     1156void print(const char * x) { printf("%s", x); }
     1157void print(int x) { printf("%d", x);  }
     1158
     1159print("x = ", 123, ".\n");
     1160\end{cfacode}
     1161Generates the following
     1162\begin{cfacode}
     1163void print_string(const char *x){
     1164  int _tmp_cp_ret0;
     1165  (_tmp_cp_ret0=printf("%s", x)) , _tmp_cp_ret0;
     1166  *(int *)&_tmp_cp_ret0; // ^?{}
     1167}
     1168void print_int(int x){
     1169  int _tmp_cp_ret1;
     1170  (_tmp_cp_ret1=printf("%d", x)) , _tmp_cp_ret1;
     1171  *(int *)&_tmp_cp_ret1; // ^?{}
     1172}
     1173
     1174struct _tuple2_ {  // _tuple2_(T0, T1)
     1175  void *field_0;
     1176  void *field_1;
     1177};
     1178struct _conc__tuple2_0 {  // _tuple2_(int, const char *)
     1179  int field_0;
     1180  const char *field_1;
     1181};
     1182struct _conc__tuple2_0 _tmp_cp6;  // _tuple2_(int, const char *)
     1183const char *_thunk0(const char **_p0, const char *_p1){
     1184        // const char * ?=?(const char **, const char *)
     1185  return *_p0=_p1;
     1186}
     1187void _thunk1(const char **_p0){ // void ?{}(const char **)
     1188  *_p0; // ?{}
     1189}
     1190void _thunk2(const char **_p0, const char *_p1){
     1191        // void ?{}(const char **, const char *)
     1192  *_p0=_p1; // ?{}
     1193}
     1194void _thunk3(const char **_p0){ // void ^?{}(const char **)
     1195  *_p0; // ^?{}
     1196}
     1197void _thunk4(struct _conc__tuple2_0 _p0){ // void print([int, const char *])
     1198  struct _tuple1_ { // _tuple1_(T0)
     1199    void *field_0;
     1200  };
     1201  struct _conc__tuple1_1 { // _tuple1_(const char *)
     1202    const char *field_0;
     1203  };
     1204  void _thunk5(struct _conc__tuple1_1 _pp0){ // void print([const char *])
     1205    print_string(_pp0.field_0);  // print(rest.0)
     1206  }
     1207  void _adapter_i_pii_(void (*_adaptee)(), void *_ret, void *_p0, void *_p1){
     1208    *(int *)_ret=((int (*)(int *, int))_adaptee)(_p0, *(int *)_p1);
     1209  }
     1210  void _adapter_pii_(void (*_adaptee)(), void *_p0, void *_p1){
     1211    ((void (*)(int *, int ))_adaptee)(_p0, *(int *)_p1);
     1212  }
     1213  void _adapter_i_(void (*_adaptee)(), void *_p0){
     1214    ((void (*)(int))_adaptee)(*(int *)_p0);
     1215  }
     1216  void _adapter_tuple1_5_(void (*_adaptee)(), void *_p0){
     1217    ((void (*)(struct _conc__tuple1_1 ))_adaptee)(*(struct _conc__tuple1_1 *)_p0);
     1218  }
     1219  print_variadic(
     1220    _adapter_tuple1_5,
     1221    _adapter_i_,
     1222    _adapter_pii_,
     1223    _adapter_i_pii_,
     1224    sizeof(int),
     1225    __alignof__(int),
     1226    sizeof(struct _conc__tuple1_1),
     1227    __alignof__(struct _conc__tuple1_1),
     1228    (void *(*)(void *, void *))_assign_i,     // int ?=?(int *, int)
     1229    (void (*)(void *))_ctor_i,                // void ?{}(int *)
     1230    (void (*)(void *, void *))_ctor_ii,       // void ?{}(int *, int)
     1231    (void (*)(void *))_dtor_ii,               // void ^?{}(int *)
     1232    (void (*)(void *))print_int,              // void print(int)
     1233    (void (*)(void *))&_thunk5,               // void print([const char *])
     1234    &_p0.field_0,                             // rest.0
     1235    &(struct _conc__tuple1_1 ){ _p0.field_1 } // [rest.1]
     1236  );
     1237}
     1238struct _tuple1_ {  // _tuple1_(T0)
     1239  void *field_0;
     1240};
     1241struct _conc__tuple1_6 {  // _tuple_1(const char *)
     1242  const char *field_0;
     1243};
     1244const char *_temp0;
     1245_temp0="x = ";
     1246void _adapter_pstring_pstring_string(
     1247  void (*_adaptee)(),
     1248  void *_ret,
     1249  void *_p0,
     1250  void *_p1
     1251){
     1252  *(const char **)_ret=
     1253    ((const char *(*)(const char **, const char *))_adaptee)(
     1254      _p0,
     1255      *(const char **)_p1
     1256    );
     1257}
     1258void _adapter_pstring_string(void (*_adaptee)(), void *_p0, void *_p1){
     1259  ((void (*)(const char **, const char *))_adaptee)(_p0, *(const char **)_p1);
     1260}
     1261void _adapter_string_(void (*_adaptee)(), void *_p0){
     1262  ((void (*)(const char *))_adaptee)(*(const char **)_p0);
     1263}
     1264void _adapter_tuple2_0_(void (*_adaptee)(), void *_p0){
     1265  ((void (*)(struct _conc__tuple2_0 ))_adaptee)(*(struct _conc__tuple2_0 *)_p0);
     1266}
     1267print_variadic(
     1268  _adapter_tuple2_0_,
     1269  _adapter_string_,
     1270  _adapter_pstring_string_,
     1271  _adapter_pstring_pstring_string_,
     1272  sizeof(const char *),
     1273  __alignof__(const char *),
     1274  sizeof(struct _conc__tuple2_0 ),
     1275  __alignof__(struct _conc__tuple2_0 ),
     1276  (void *(*)(void *, void *))&_thunk0, // const char * ?=?(const char **, const char *)
     1277  (void (*)(void *))&_thunk1,          // void ?{}(const char **)
     1278  (void (*)(void *, void *))&_thunk2,  // void ?{}(const char **, const char *)
     1279  (void (*)(void *))&_thunk3,          // void ^?{}(const char **)
     1280  (void (*)(void *))print_string,      // void print(const char *)
     1281  (void (*)(void *))&_thunk4,          // void print([int, const char *])
     1282  &_temp0,                             // "x = "
     1283  (({  // copy construct tuple argument to print
     1284    int *__multassign_L0 = (int *)&_tmp_cp6.field_0;
     1285    const char **__multassign_L1 = (const char **)&_tmp_cp6.field_1;
     1286    int __multassign_R0 = 123;
     1287    const char *__multassign_R1 = ".\n";
     1288    ((*__multassign_L0=__multassign_R0 /* ?{} */),
     1289     (*__multassign_L1=__multassign_R1 /* ?{} */));
     1290  }), &_tmp_cp6)                        // [123, ".\n"]
     1291);
     1292({  // destroy argument temporary
     1293  int *__massassign_L0 = (int *)&_tmp_cp6.field_0;
     1294  const char **__massassign_L1 = (const char **)&_tmp_cp6.field_1;
     1295  ((*__massassign_L0 /* ^?{} */) , (*__massassign_L1 /* ^?{} */));
     1296});
     1297\end{cfacode}
     1298The type @_tuple2_@ is generated to allow passing the @rest@ argument to @print_variadic@.
     1299Thunks 0 through 3 provide wrappers for the @otype@ parameters for @const char *@, while @_thunk4@ translates a call to @print([int, const char *])@ into a call to @print_variadic(int, [const char *])@.
     1300This all builds to a call to @print_variadic@, with the appropriate copy construction of the tuple argument.
     1301
     1302\section{Future Work}
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.