Does Ada deallocate memory automatically under some circumstances? - memory-management

I was trying to find some information as to why the keyword new can be used to dynamically allocate objects but there is no keyword like delete that could be used to deallocate them. Going through mentions of Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation in Ada 2012 Reference Manual I found a few interesting excerpts:
Every object is finalized before being destroyed (for example, by
leaving a subprogram_body containing an object_declaration, or by a call to an instance of
Unchecked_Deallocation)
Each access-to-object type has an associated storage pool. The storage allocated by an allocator comes
from the pool; instances of Unchecked_Deallocation return storage to the pool.
The Deallocate procedure of a user-defined storage pool object P may be called by the implementation to
deallocate storage for a type T whose pool is P only at the places when an Allocate call is allowed for P,
during the execution of an instance of Unchecked_Deallocation for T, or as part of the finalization of the
collection of T.
If I had to guess, what that means is that it is possible for an implementation to automatically deallocate an object associated with an access when the execution leaves the scope in which access was declared. No need for explicit calls to Unchecked_Deallocation.
This seems to be supported by a section in Ada 95 Quality and Style Guide which states:
The unchecked storage deallocation mechanism is one method for overriding the default time at which allocated storage is reclaimed. The earliest default time is when an object is no longer accessible, for example, when control leaves the scope where an access type was declared (the exact point after this time is implementation-dependent). Any unchecked deallocation of storage performed prior to this may result in an erroneous Ada program if an attempt is made to access the object.
But the wording is rather unclear. If I were to run this code, what exactly would happen on the memory side of things?
with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;
procedure Main is
procedure Run is
X : access Integer := new Integer'(64);
begin
Put (Integer'Image (X.all));
end Run;
begin
for I in 1 .. 16 loop
Run;
end loop;
end Main;
with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;
procedure Main is
procedure Outer is
type Integer_Access is not null access Integer;
procedure Run is
Y : Integer_Access := new Integer'(64);
begin
Put (Integer'Image (Y.all));
end Run;
begin
for I in 1 .. 16 loop
Run;
end loop;
end Outer;
begin
Outer;
end Main;
Is there a guaranteed memory leak or is X deallocated when Run finishes?

As outlined in Memory Management with Ada 2012, cited here, a local variable is typically allocated on a stack; its memory is automatically released when the variable's scope exits. In contrast, a dynamic a variable is typically allocated on a heap; its memory is allocated using new, and its memory must be reclaimed, usually:
Explicitly, e.g. using an instance of Unchecked_Deallocation.
Implicitly, e.g. using a controlled type derived from Finalization; as noted here, when the scope of a controlled instance exits, automatic finalization calls Finalize, which reclaims storage in a manner suitable to the type's design.
The children of Ada.Containers use controlled types internally to encapsulate access values and manage memory automatically. For reference, compare your compiler's implementation of a particular container to the corresponding functional container cited here.
Ada offers a variety of ways to manage memory, summarized on slide 28 in the author's order of preferability:
Stack-based.
Container-based.
Finalization-based.
Subpool-based.
Manual allocate/deallocate.
In the particular case of Main, the program allocates storage for 16 instances of Integer. As noted on slide 12, "A compiler may reclaim allocated memory when the corresponding access type goes out of scope." For example, a recent version of the GNAT reference manual indicates that the following storage management implementation advice is followed:
A storage pool for an anonymous access type should be created at the point of an allocator for the type, and be reclaimed when the designated object becomes inaccessible.
Absent such an indication, the storage is not required to be reclaimed. It is typically reclaimed by the host operating system when the program exits.

Do your programs leak memory? It depends on the compiler.
AFAIK, there are only two times when a compiler is required to reclaim allocated memory:
when an access type with Storage_Size specified goes out of scope
when an instance of Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation is called with a non-null value
However, a compiler is allowed to reclaim memory in other cases. For example, a compiler may implement garbage collection, but I don't know of any that do.
FWIW, I don't know of any compiler for which your programs don't leak memory.

Related

Golang: are global variables protected from garbage collection?

I'm fairly new to Golang. I'm working on an application that builds an in-memory object-oriented data model (basically an ORM) to support the application functionality. I realize this isn't really idiomatic Go but it makes sense in this situation.
All my core objects are allocated on the heap then stored in global (though not necessarily exported) map structures that allow the code to look them up based on database IDs. Objects that reference instances of other objects have pointer fields in their structure definitions.
I was under the impression that any data that can be reached from a global variable is protected from being garbage collected. However, I am seeing intermittent cases of pointer references apparently becoming nil over time. If I restart the application, and rebuild the object model, then try the same operation, the problem disappears.
Is GC freeing my memory out from under me? Or should I look elsewhere to understand this problem? And if the answer to my first question is yes... how can I stop this from happening?
The garbage collector does not free memory as long as it is reachable. Global or package level variables are accessible during the whole lifetime of your app, so they can't be freed by the GC.
If you see the opposite, that is definitely a bug / mistake on your part (unless the Go runtime itself has a bug). For example you may have a data race initializing / accessing your global variables, or you (or some library you use) may use package unsafe or the uintptr type incorrectly. For example, quoting from unsafe.Pointer:
A uintptr is an integer, not a reference. Converting a Pointer to a uintptr creates an integer value with no pointer semantics. Even if a uintptr holds the address of some object, the garbage collector will not update that uintptr's value if the object moves, nor will that uintptr keep the object from being reclaimed.

Registers usage during compilation

I found information that general purpose registers r1-r23 and r26-r28 are used by the compiler to store local variables, but do they have any other purpose? Also which memory are this registers part of(cache/RAM)?
Finally what does global pointer gp in register r26 points to?
Also which memory are this registers part of(cache/RAM)?
Register are on-processors storage allowing a fast data transfer (2 reads/1 write per cycle). They store variables that can represent memory addresses, but, besides that, are completely unrelated to memory or cache.
I found information that general purpose registers r1-r23 and r26-r28 are used by the compiler to store local variables, but do they have any other purpose?
Registers are use with respect to hardware or software conventions. Hardware conventions are related to the instruction set architecture. For instance, the call instruction transfers control to a subroutine and stores return address in register r31 (ra). Very nasty things are likely to happen if you overwrite r31 register by any mean without precautions. Software conventions are supposed to insure a proper behavior if used consistently within software. They indicate which register have special use, which need to be saved when context switching, etc. These conventions can be changed without hardware modifications, but doing so will probably require changes in several software tools (compiler, linker, loader, OS, ...).
general purpose registers r1-r23 and r26-r28 are used by the compiler to store local variables
Actually, some registers are reserved.
r1 is used by asm for macro expansion. (sw)
r2-r7 are used by the compiler to pass arguments to functions or get return values. (sw)
r24-r25 can only be used by exception handlers. (sw)
r26-r28 hold different pointers (global, stack, frame) that are set either by the runtime or the compiler and cannot be modified by the programmer.(sw)
r29-r31 are hw coded returns addresses for subprograms or interrupts/exceptions. (hw)
So only r8-r23 can used by the compiler.
but do they have any other purpose?
No, and that's why they can be freely used by the compiler or programmer.
Finally what does global pointer in register r26 points to?
Accessing memory with load or stores have a based memory addressing. Effective address for ldx or stx (where 'x' is is b, bu, h, etc depending on data characteristics) is computed by adding a register and a 16 bits immediate. This only allows to go an an address within +/-32k of the content of register.
If the processor has the address of a var in a register (for instance the value returned by a malloc) the immediate allows to do a displacement to access fields in a struct, next array value, etc.
If the address is local or global, it must be computed by the program. Pointers registers are used to that purpose. Local vars addresses are computed by adding an immediate to the stack pointer (r27or sp).
Addresses of global or static vars are computed by adding an integer to the global pointer (r26 or gp). Content of gp corresponds to the start of the memory data segment and is initialized by the loader just before program execution and must not be modified. The immediate displacement with respect to the start of data segment is computed by the linker when it defines memory layout.
Note that this only allows to access 64k memory because of the 16 bits immediate width. If the size of global/static variables exceeds this value and a var is not within this range, a couple of instructions are required to enter the 32 bits of the address of the var before the data transfer. With gp this is not required and it is a way to provide a faster access to global variables.

What happens when the raw pointer from shared_ptr get() is deleted?

I wrote some code like this:
shared_ptr<int> r = make_shared<int>();
int *ar = r.get();
delete ar; // report double free or corruption
// still some code
When the code ran up to delete ar;, the program crashed, and reported​ "double free or corruption", I'm confused why double free? The "r" is still in the scope, and not popped-off from stack. Do the delete operator do something magic?? Does it know the raw pointer is handled by a smart pointer currently? and then counter in "r" be decremented to zero automatically?
I know the operations is not recommended, but I want to know why?
You are deleting a pointer that didn't come from new, so you have undefined behavior (anything can happen).
From cppreference on delete:
For the first (non-array) form, expression must be a pointer to an object type or a class type contextually implicitly convertible to such pointer, and its value must be either null or pointer to a non-array object created by a new-expression, or a pointer to a base subobject of a non-array object created by a new-expression. If expression is anything else, including if it is a pointer obtained by the array form of new-expression, the behavior is undefined.
If the allocation is done by new, we can be sure that the pointer we have is something we can use delete on. But in the case of shared_ptr.get(), we cannot be sure if we can use delete because it might not be the actual pointer returned by new.
shared_ptr<int> r = make_shared<int>();
There is no guarantee that this will call new int (which isn't strictly observable by the user anyway) or more generally new T (which is observable with a user defined, class specific operator new); in practice, it won't (there is no guarantee that it won't).
The discussion that follows isn't just about shared_ptr, but about "smart pointers" with ownership semantics. For any owning smart pointer smart_owning:
The primary motivation for make_owning instead of smart_owning<T>(new T) is to avoid having a memory allocation without owner at any time; that was essential in C++ when order of evaluation of expressions didn't provide the guarantee that evaluation of the sub-expressions in the argument list was immediately before call of that function; historically in C++:
f (smart_owning<T>(new T), smart_owning<U>(new U));
could be evaluated as:
T *temp1 = new T;
U *temp2 = new U;
auto &&temp3 = smart_owning<T>(temp1);
auto &&temp4 = smart_owning<U>(temp2);
This way temp1 and temp2 are not managed by any owning object for a non trivial time:
obviously new U can throw an exception
constructing an owning smart pointer usually requires the allocation of (small) ressources and can throw
So either temp1 or temp2 could be leaked (but not both) if an exception was thrown, which was the exact problem we were trying to avoid in the first place. This means composite expressions involving construction of owning smart pointers was a bad idea; this is fine:
auto &&temp_t = smart_owning<T>(new T);
auto &&temp_u = smart_owning<U>(new U);
f (temp_t, temp_u);
Usually expression involving as many sub-expression with function calls as f (smart_owning<T>(new T), smart_owning<U>(new U)) are considered reasonable (it's a pretty simple expression in term of number of sub-expressions). Disallowing such expressions is quite annoying and very difficult to justify.
[This is one reason, and in my opinion the most compelling reason, why the non determinism of the order of evaluation was removed by the C++ standardisation committee so that such code is not safe. (This was an issue not just for memory allocated, but for any managed allocation, like file descriptors, database handles...)]
Because code frequently needed to do things such as smart_owning<T>(allocate_T()) in sub-expressions, and because telling programmers to decompose moderately complex expressions involving allocation in many simple lines wasn't appealing (more lines of code doesn't mean easier to read), the library writers provided a simple fix: a function to do the creation of an object with dynamic lifetime and the creation of its owning object together. That solved the order of evaluation problem (but was complicated at first because it needed perfect forwarding of the arguments of the constructor).
Giving two tasks to a function (allocate an instance of T and a instance of smart_owning) gives the freedom to do an interesting optimization: you can avoid one dynamic allocation by putting both the managed object and its owner next to each others.
But once again, that was not the primary purpose of functions like make_shared.
Because exclusive ownership smart pointers by definition don't need to keep a reference count, and by definition don't need to share the data needed for the deleter either between instances, and so can keep that data in the "smart pointer"(*), no additional allocation is needed for the construction of unique_ptr; yet a make_unique function template was added, to avoid the dangling pointer issue, not to optimize a non-thing (an allocation that isn't done in the fist place).
(*) which BTW means unique owner "smart pointers" do not have pointer semantic, as pointer semantic implies that you can makes copies of the "pointer", and you can't have two copies of a unique owner pointing to the same instance; "smart pointers" were never pointers anyway, the term is misleading.
Summary:
make_shared<T> does an optional optimization where there is no separate dynamic memory allocation for T: there is no operator new(sizeof (T)). There is obviously still the creation of an instance with dynamic lifetime with another operator new: placement new.
If you replace the explicit memory deallocation with an explicit destruction and add a pause immediately after that point:
class C {
public:
~C();
};
shared_ptr<C> r = make_shared<C>();
C *ar = r.get();
ar->~C();
pause(); // stops the program forever
The program will probably run fine; it is still illogical, indefensible, incorrect to explicitly destroy an object managed by a smart pointer. It isn't "your" resource. If pause() could exit with an exception, the owning smart pointer would try to destroy the managed object which doesn't even exist anymore.
It of course depends on how library implements make_shared, however most probable implementation is that:
std::make_shared allocates one block for two things:
shared pointer control block
contained object
std::make_shared() will invoke memory allocator once and then it will call placement new twice to initialize (call constructors) of mentioned two things.
| block requested from allocator |
| shared_ptr control block | X object |
#1 #2 #3
That means that memory allocator has provided one big block, which address is #1.
Shared pointer then uses it for control block (#1) and actual contained object (#2).
When you invoke delete with actual object kept by shred_ptr ( .get() ) you call delete(#2).
Because #2 is not known by allocator you get an corruption error.
See here. I quot:
std::shared_ptr is a smart pointer that retains shared ownership of an object through a pointer. Several shared_ptr objects may own the same object. The object is destroyed and its memory deallocated when either of the following happens:
the last remaining shared_ptr owning the object is destroyed;
the last remaining shared_ptr owning the object is assigned another pointer via operator= or reset().
The object is destroyed using delete-expression or a custom deleter that is supplied to shared_ptr during construction.
So the pointer is deleted by shared_ptr. You're not suppose to delete the stored pointer yourself
UPDATE:
I didn't realize that there were more statements and the pointer was not out of scope, I'm sorry.
I was reading more and the standard doesn't say much about the behavior of get() but here is a note, I quote:
A shared_ptr may share ownership of an object while storing a pointer to another object. get() returns the stored pointer, not the managed pointer.
So it looks that it is allowed that the pointer returned by get() is not necessarily the same pointer allocated by the shared_ptr (presumably using new). So delete that pointer is undefined behavior. I will be looking a little more into the details.
UPDATE 2:
The standard says at § 20.7.2.2.6 (about make_shared):
6 Remarks: Implementations are encouraged, but not required, to perform no more than one memory allocation. [ Note: This provides efficiency equivalent to an intrusive smart pointer. — end note ]
7 [ Note: These functions will typically allocate more memory than sizeof(T) to allow for internal bookkeeping structures such as the reference counts. — end note ]
So an specific implementation of make_shared could allocate a single chunk of memory (or more) and use part of that memory to initialize the stored pointer (but maybe not all the memory allocated). get() must return a pointer to the stored object, but there is no requirement by the standard, as previously said, that the pointer returned by get() has to be the one allocated by new. So delete that pointer is undefined behavior, you got a signal raised but anything can happen.

Can you "pin" an object in memory with Go?

I have a Go object whose address in memory I would like to keep constant. in C# one can pin an object's location in memory. Is there a way to do this in Go?
An object on which you keep a reference won't move. There is no handle or indirection, and the address you get is permanent.
From the documentation :
Note that, unlike in C, it's perfectly OK to return the address of a
local variable; the storage associated with the variable survives
after the function returns
When you set a variable, you can read this address using the & operator, and you can pass it.
tl;dr no - but it does not matter unless you're trying to do something unusual.
Worth noting that the accepted answer is partially incorrect.
There is no guarantee that objects are not moved - either on the stack or on the Go heap - but as long as you don't use unsafe this will not matter to you because the Go runtime will take care of transparently updating your pointers in case an object is moved.
If OTOH you use unsafe to obtain a uintptr, invoke raw syscalls, perform CGO calls, or otherwise expose the address (e.g. oldAddr := fmt.Sprintf("%p", &foo)), etc. you should be aware that addresses can change, and that nor compiler nor runtime will magically patch things for you.
While currently the standard Go compiler only moves objects on the stack (e.g. when a goroutine stack needs to be resized), there is nothing in the Go language specification that prevents a different implementation from moving objects on the Go heap.
While there is (yet) no explicit support for pinning objects in the stack or in the Go heap, there is a recommended workaround: allocate manually the memory outside of the Go heap (e.g. via mmap) and using finalizers to automatically free that allocation once all references to it are dropped. The benefit of this approach is that memory allocated manually outside of the Go heap will never be moved by the Go runtime, so its address will never change, but it will still be deallocated automatically when it's not needed anymore, so it can't leak.

Sharing GlobalAlloc() memory from DLL to multiple Win32 applications

I want to move my caching library to a DLL and allow multiple applications to share a single pointer allocated within the DLL using GlobalAlloc(). How could I accomplish this, and would it result in a significant performance decrease?
You could certainly do this and there won't be any performance implication for a single pointer.
Rather than use GlobalAlloc, a legacy API, you should opt for a different shared heap. For example the simplest to use is the COM allocator, CoTaskMemAlloc. Or you can use HeapAlloc passing the process heap obtained by GetProcessHeap.
For example, and neglecting to show error checking:
void *mem = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY, size);
Note that you only need to worry about heap sharing if you expect the memory to be deallocated in a different module from where it was created. If your DLL both creates and destroys the memory then you can use plain old malloc. Because all modules live in the same process address space, memory allocated by any module in that process, can be used by any other module.
Update
I failed on first reading of the question to pick up on the possibility that you may be wanting multiple process to have access to the same memory. If that's what you need then it is only possible with memory mapped files, or perhaps with some form of IPC.

Resources