What makes programmatic introspection/reflection easier in virtual machines rather than native code?
I read somewhere that VMs by nature allow for better introspection/reflection capabilities but I cannot find more information about it online. Would like to know why.
I believe you mean higher-level languages vs lower-level languages instead of virtual machines.
Higher level languages like Java and C# have implemented reflection and introspection, so there are functions available to the developer to use this information.
Languages like C do not have any pre-built reflection capabilities.
Reflection is very expensive (time-consuming) for any language to run, and should not be used in code that needs to be extremely fast.
Programmatic introspection essentially means to examine & inspect the current call stack, or the current continuation. (Read Appel's book: Compiling with Continuations).
Few programming languages provide this ability. Scheme's call/cc reifies the current continuation, but give no standard ways to inspect it.
The current call stack might be inspectable (e.g. see GCC __builtin_return_address as an ad hoc example).
Most compilers (but not all) do not have an easy way to give information about the layout of the current call frame (however, the debugger DWARF format contains it).
And optimizing compilers (e.g. for C) usually don't give access to the offset of some local variable in the call frame (even if the compiler computes this offset). BTW, the same stack slot might be reused for different variables; read about register spilling.
See also J.Pitrat's CAIA system - the generated C code is able to organize the stack to be able to inspect it;
In a bytecode VM like JVM or NekoVM or Parrot, introspection is easier because each local variable has a well defined slot in the call frame. This is not the case for most compiled languages (e.g. C or C++) because the compiler is able to reuse (for optimization purposes) some slots, or even put a variable only in some machine register, without even allocating any call stack slot to spill it.
Related
I was going through the Dinosaur book by Galvin where I faced the difficulty as asked in the question.
Typically application developers design programs according to an application programming interface (API). The API specifies a set of functions that are available to an application programmer, including the parameters that are passed to each function and the return values the programmer can expect.
The text adds that:
Behind the scenes the functions that make up an API typically invoke the actual system calls on behalf of the application programmer. For example, the Win32 function CreateProcess() (which unsurprisingly is used to create a new process) actually calls the NTCreateProcess() system call in the Windows kernel.
From the above two points I came to know that: Programmers using the API, make the function calls to the API corresponding to the system call which they want to make. The concerning function in the API then actually makes the system call.
Next what the text says confuses me a bit:
The run-time support system (a set of functions built into libraries included with a compiler) for most programming languages provides a system-call interface that serves as the link to system calls made available by the operating system. The system-call interface intercepts function calls in the API and invokes the necessary system calls within the operating system. Typically, a number is associated with each system call, and the system-call interface maintains a table indexed according to these numbers. The system call interface then invokes the intended system call in the operating-system kernel and returns the status of the system call and any return values.
The above excerpt makes me feel that the functions in the API does not make the system calls directly. There are probably function built into the system-call interface of the runtime support system, which are waiting for an event of system call from the function in the API.
The above is a diagram in the text explaining the working of the system call interface.
The text later explains the working of a system call in the C standard library as follows:
which is quite clear.
I don't totally understand the terminology of the excerpts you shared. Some terminology is also wrong like in the blue image at the bottom. It says the standard C library provides system call interfaces while it doesn't. The standard C library is just a standard. It is a convention. It just says that, if you write a certain code, then the effect of that code when it is ran should be according to the convention. It also says that the C library intercepts printf() calls while it doesn't. This is general terminology which is confusing at best.
The C library doesn't intercept calls. As an example, on Linux, the open source implementation of the C standard library is glibc. You can browse it's source code here: https://elixir.bootlin.com/glibc/latest/source. When you write C/C++ code, you use standard functions which are specified in the C/C++ convention.
When you write code, this code will be compiled to assembly and then to machine code. Assembly is also a higher level representation of machine code. It is just closer to the actual code as it is easier to translate to it then C/C++. The easiest case to understand is when you compile code statically. When you compile code statically, all code is included in your executable. For example, if you write
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("Hello, World!");
return 0;
}
the printf() function is called in stdio.h which is a header provided by gcc written specifically for one OS or a set of UNIX-like OSes. This header provides prototypes which are defined in other .c files provided by glibc. These .c files provide the actual implementation of printf(). The printf() function will make a system call which rely on the presence of an OS like Linux to run. When you compile statically, the code is all included up to the system call. You can see my answer here: Who sets the RIP register when you call the clone syscall?. It specifically explains how system calls are made.
In the end you'll have something like assembly code pushing some arguments into some conventionnal registers then the actual syscall instruction which jumps to an MSR. I don't totally understand the mechanism behind printf() but it will jump to the Linux kernel's implementation of the write system call which will write to the console and return.
I think what confuses you is that the "runtime-support system" is probably referring to higher level languages which are not compiled to machine code directly like Python or Java. Java has a virtual machine which translates the bytecode produced by compilation to machine code during runtime using a virtual machine. It can be confusing to not make this distinction when talking about different languages. Maybe your book is lacking examples.
While porting a regular C++ class to a Windows Runtime class, I hit a fairly significant road block. My C++ class reports certain error conditions by throwing custom error objects. This allows clients to conveniently filter on exceptions, documented in the public interface.
I cannot seem to find a reliable way to pass enough information across the ABI to replicate the same fidelity1 using the Windows Runtime. Under the assumption, that an HRESULT is the only generalized error reporting information, I have evaluated the following options:
The 'obvious' choice: Map the exception condition to any of the predefined HRESULT values. While this technically works (presumably), there is no way at the call site to distinguish between errors originating from the implementation, and errors originating from callees of the implementation.
Invent custom HRESULTs. If this layout still applies to the Windows Runtime, I could easily set the Customer bit and go crazy with my 27 bits worth of error code representation. This works, until someone else does the same. I'm not aware of any way to attribute an HRESULT to an interface, which would solve this ambiguity.
Even if either of the above could be made to work as intended, throwing hresult_errors as prescribed, the call site would still be at the mercy of the language projection. While C# seemingly allows to pass any System.Exception(-derived) error object across the ABI, and have them re-thrown at the call site, C++/WinRT only supports some 14 distinct exception types (see throw_hresult).
With neither of these options allowing for sufficiently complete error information to cross the ABI, it seems that an HRESULT simply may not be enough. Does the Windows Runtime have any provisioning to allow for additional (arbitrary) error information to cross the ABI?
1 I'm not strictly interested in passing actual C++ exceptions across. Instead, I'm looking for a way to allow clients to uniquely identify documented error conditions, in a natural way. Passing custom Windows Runtime error types would be fine.
There are a few options here. Our general API guidance for Windows Runtime APIs that have well-defined, expected failure modes is that failure information should be part of the normal parameters and return value. We would normally create a TryDoSomething API in this situation and provide extended error information via either a return or out parameter. This works best for us due to the fact that there's no consistent way to map exceptions across all languages. This is a topic we hope to revisit more in xlang in the future.
HRESULTs are usable with a caveat. HRESULT values can be a nuisance in anything but C++, where you need to redefine them locally because you can't just use the header. They will generate exceptions in most languages, so if this is common, you'll be creating debugger noise for your components' clients.
The last option allows you to transit a language-specific exception stored in a COM object across the ABI boundary (and up the COM logical stack, including across marshalled calls). In practice it will only be usable by C++ code compiled with the same compiler, settings, and type definitions as the component itself. E.g. passing it from a component compiled with VC to a component compiled with Clang could potentially lead to memory corruption.
Assuming I haven't scared you off, you'll want to look at RoOriginateLanguageException. It allows you to wrap the exception in a COM object and store it with other winrt error data in the TLS. We use this in projections to enable exceptions thrown within a callback to propagate to the outer code using the same projection in a controlled way that unwinds safely through other code potentially written using other languages or tools. This is how the support in C# and other languages is implemented.
Thanks,
Ben
I'm aware this might be a broad question (there's no specific code for you to look at), but I'm hoping I'd get some insights as to what to do, or how to approach the problem.
To keep things simple, suppose the compiler that I'm writing performs these three steps:
parse (and bind all variables)
typecheck
codegen
Also the language that I'm building the compiler for wants to support late-analysis/late-binding (ie., it has a function that takes a String, which is to be compiled and executed as a piece of source-code during runtime).
Now during parse-phase, I have a piece of context that I need to keep around till run-time for the sole benefit of the aforementioned function (because it needs to parse and typecheck its argument in that context).
So the question, how should I do this? What do other compilers do?
Should I just serialise the context object to disk (codegen for it) and resurrect it during run-time or something?
Thanks
Yes, you'll need to emit the type information (or other context, you weren't very specific) in your object/executable files, so that your eval can read it at runtime. You might look at Java's .class file format for inspiration; Java doesn't have eval as such, but you can dynamically spin new bytecode at runtime that must be linked in a type-safe manner. David Conrad's comment is spot-on: this information can also be used to implement reflection, if your language has such a feature.
That's as much as I can help you without more specifics.
I was wondering, why does Math.sin(double) delegate to StrictMath.sin(double) when I've found the problem in a Reddit thread. The mentioned code fragment looks like this (JDK 7u25):
Math.java :
public static double sin(double a) {
return StrictMath.sin(a); // default impl. delegates to StrictMath
}
StrictMath.java :
public static native double sin(double a);
The second declaration is native which is reasonable for me. The doc of Math states that:
Code generators are encouraged to use platform-specific native libraries or microprocessor instructions, where available (...)
And the question is: isn't the native library that implements StrictMath platform-specific enough? What more can a JIT know about the platform than an installed JRE (please only concentrate on this very case)? In ther words, why isn't Math.sin() native already?
I'll try to wrap up the entire discussion in a single post..
Generally, Math delegates to StrictMath. Obviously, the call can be inlined so this is not a performance issue.
StrictMath is a final class with native methods backed by native libraries. One might think, that native means optimal, but this doesn't necessarily has to be the case. Looking through StrictMath javadoc one can read the following:
(...) the definitions of some of the numeric functions in this package require that they produce the same results as certain published algorithms. These algorithms are available from the well-known network library netlib as the package "Freely Distributable Math Library," fdlibm. These algorithms, which are written in the C programming language, are then to be understood as executed with all floating-point operations following the rules of Java floating-point arithmetic.
How I understand this doc is that the native library implementing StrictMath is implemented in terms of fdlibm library, which is multi-platform and known to produce predictable results. Because it's multi-platform, it can't be expected to be an optimal implementation on every platform and I believe that this is the place where a smart JIT can fine-tune the actual performance e.g. by statistical analysis of input ranges and adjusting the algorithms/implementation accordingly.
Digging deeper into the implementation it quickly turns out, that the native library backing up StrictMath actually uses fdlibm:
StrictMath.c source in OpenJDK 7 looks like this:
#include "fdlibm.h"
...
JNIEXPORT jdouble JNICALL
Java_java_lang_StrictMath_sin(JNIEnv *env, jclass unused, jdouble d)
{
return (jdouble) jsin((double)d);
}
and the sine function is defined in fdlibm/src/s_sin.c refering in a few places to __kernel_sin function that comes directly from the header fdlibm.h.
While I'm temporarily accepting my own answer, I'd be glad to accept a more competent one when it comes up.
Why does Math.sin() delegate to StrictMath.sin()?
The JIT compiler should be able to inline the StrictMath.sin(a) call. So there's little point creating an extra native method for the Math.sin() case ... and adding extra JIT compiler smarts to optimize the calling sequence, etcetera.
In the light of that, your objection really boils down to an "elegance" issue. But the "pragmatic" viewpoint is more persuasive:
Fewer native calls makes the JVM core and JIT easier to maintain, less fragile, etcetera.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
At least, that's how I imagine how the Java team would view this.
The question assumes that the JVM actually runs the delegation code. On many JVMs, it won't. Calls to Math.sin(), etc.. will potentially be replaced by the JIT with some intrinsic function code (if suitable) transparently. This will typically be done in an unobservable way to the end user. This is a common trick for JVM implementers where interesting specializations can happen (even if the method is not tagged as native).
Note however that most platforms can't simply drop in the single processor instruction for sin due to suitable input ranges (eg see: Intel discussion).
Math API permits a non-strict but better-performing implementations of its methods but does not require it and by default Math simply uses StrictMath impl.
I could not find any good document on internet about STM32 programming. STM's own documents do not explain anything more than register functions. I will greatly appreciate if anyone can explain my following questions?
I noticed that in all example programs that STM provides, local variables for main() are always defined outside of the main() function (with occasional use of static keyword). Is there any reason for that? Should I follow a similar practice? Should I avoid using local variables inside the main?
I have a gloabal variable which is updated within the clock interrupt handle. I am using the same variable inside another function as a loop condition. Don't I need to access this variable using some form of atomic read operation? How can I know that a clock interrupt does not change its value in the middle of the function execution? Should I need to cancel clock interrupt everytime I need to use this variable inside a function? (However, this seems extremely ineffective to me as I use it as loop condition. I believe there should be better ways of doing it).
Keil automatically inserts a startup code which is written in assembly (i.e. startup_stm32f4xx.s). This startup code has the following import statements:
IMPORT SystemInit
IMPORT __main
.In "C", it makes sense. However, in C++ both main and system_init have different names (e.g. _int_main__void). How can this startup code can still work in C++ even without using "extern "C" " (I tried and it worked). How can the c++ linker (armcc --cpp) can associate these statements with the correct functions?
you can use local or global variables, using local in embedded systems has a risk of your stack colliding with your data. with globals you dont have that problem. but this is true no matter where you are, embedded microcontroller, desktop, etc.
I would make a copy of the global in the foreground task that uses it.
unsigned int myglobal;
void fun ( void )
{
unsigned int myg;
myg=myglobal;
and then only use myg for the rest of the function. Basically you are taking a snapshot and using the snapshot. You would want to do the same thing if you are reading a register, if you want to do multiple things based on a sample of something take one sample of it and make decisions on that one sample, otherwise the item can change between samples. If you are using one global to communicate back and forth to the interrupt handler, well I would use two variables one foreground to interrupt, the other interrupt to foreground. yes, there are times where you need to carefully manage a shared resource like that, normally it has to do with times where you need to do more than one thing, for example if you had several items that all need to change as a group before the handler can see them change then you need to disable the interrupt handler until all the items have changed. here again there is nothing special about embedded microcontrollers this is all basic stuff you would see on a desktop system with a full blown operating system.
Keil knows what they are doing if they support C++ then from a system level they have this worked out. I dont use Keil I use gcc and llvm for microcontrollers like this one.
Edit:
Here is an example of what I am talking about
https://github.com/dwelch67/stm32vld/tree/master/stm32f4d/blinker05
stm32 using timer based interrupts, the interrupt handler modifies a variable shared with the foreground task. The foreground task takes a single snapshot of the shared variable (per loop) and if need be uses the snapshot more than once in the loop rather than the shared variable which can change. This is C not C++ I understand that, and I am using gcc and llvm not Keil. (note llvm has known problems optimizing tight while loops, very old bug, dont know why they have no interest in fixing it, llvm works for this example).
Question 1: Local variables
The sample code provided by ST is not particularly efficient or elegant. It gets the job done, but sometimes there are no good reasons for the things they do.
In general, you use always want your variables to have the smallest scope possible. If you only use a variable in one function, define it inside that function. Add the "static" keyword to local variables if and only if you need them to retain their value after the function is done.
In some embedded environments, like the PIC18 architecture with the C18 compiler, local variables are much more expensive (more program space, slower execution time) than global. On the Cortex M3, that is not true, so you should feel free to use local variables. Check the assembly listing and see for yourself.
Question 2: Sharing variables between interrupts and the main loop
People have written entire chapters explaining the answers to this group of questions. Whenever you share a variable between the main loop and an interrupt, you should definitely use the volatile keywords on it. Variables of 32 or fewer bits can be accessed atomically (unless they are misaligned).
If you need to access a larger variable, or two variables at the same time from the main loop, then you will have to disable the clock interrupt while you are accessing the variables. If your interrupt does not require precise timing, this will not be a problem. When you re-enable the interrupt, it will automatically fire if it needs to.
Question 3: main function in C++
I'm not sure. You can use arm-none-eabi-nm (or whatever nm is called in your toolchain) on your object file to see what symbol name the C++ compiler assigns to main(). I would bet that C++ compilers refrain from mangling the main function for this exact reason, but I'm not sure.
STM's sample code is not an exemplar of good coding practice, it is merely intended to exemplify use of their standard peripheral library (assuming those are the examples you are talking about). In some cases it may be that variables are declared external to main() because they are accessed from an interrupt context (shared memory). There is also perhaps a possibility that it was done that way merely to allow the variables to be watched in the debugger from any context; but that is not a reason to copy the technique. My opinion of STM's example code is that it is generally pretty poor even as example code, let alone from a software engineering point of view.
In this case your clock interrupt variable is atomic so long as it is 32bit or less so long as you are not using read-modify-write semantics with multiple writers. You can safely have one writer, and multiple readers regardless. This is true for this particular platform, but not necessarily universally; the answer may be different for 8 or 16 bit systems, or for multi-core systems for example. The variable should be declared volatile in any case.
I am using C++ on STM32 with Keil, and there is no problem. I am not sure why you think that the C++ entry points are different, they are not here (Keil ARM-MDK v4.22a). The start-up code calls SystemInit() which initialises the PLL and memory timing for example, then calls __main() which performs global static initialisation then calls C++ constructors for global static objects before calling main(). If in doubt, step through the code in the debugger. It is important to note that __main() is not the main() function you write for your application, it is a wrapper with different behaviour for C and C++, but which ultimately calls your main() function.