The following question is more related to design, rather than actual coding. I don't know if there's a technical term for such problem, so I'll proceed with an example.
I have some openCL code not optimized at all, and in the Kernel there's essentially a switch statement similar to the following
switch(const) {
case const_a : do_something_a(...); break;
case const_b : do_something_b(....); break;
... //etc
}
I cannot write the actual statement since is quite long. As a simple example consider the following switch statement:
int a;
switch(input):
case 13 : {a = 3; break;}
case 1 : {a = 7; break;}
case 23 : {a = 1; break;}
default : {...}
The question is... would it be better to change such switch with an expression like
a = (input == 13)*3 + (input == 1)*7 + (input == 23)
?
If it's not, is it possible to make it more efficient anyway?
You can assume input only takes values in the set of cases of the switch statement.
You've discovered an interesting question that GPU compilers wrestle with. The general advice is try not to branch. Tricks to make that possible are splitting kernels up (as suggested above) and preprocessor (program-time definitions). Research in GPU algorithm development basically works from this axiom.
Branching all over the place won't get great efficiency because of the inherent divergence (channel = work item within the SIMD thread/warp). Remember that all these channels must execute together. So in a switch where all are taking different paths everyone else goes along for the ride silently waiting for their "case" to execute. Now, if input is always always the same value, it can still be a win.
Another popular option is a table indirection.
kernel void foo(const int *t, ...)
...
a = tbl[input];
This case has a few problems too depending on hardware, inputs, and problem size.
Without more specific context, I can conjure up a case where any of these can run well or poorly.
Switching (or big if-then-else chains).
PROS: If all work items generally take the same path (input is mostly the same value), it's going to be efficient. You could also write an if-then-else chain putting the most common cases first. (On GPUs a switch is not necessarily as easy as an indirect jump since there are multiple work items and they may take different paths.)
CONS: Might generate lots of program code and could blow out the instruction cache. Branching all over the place can get a little costly depending on how many cases need to be evaluated. It might just be better to grind through the compute with the predicated code.
Predicated Code (Your (input == 13)*3 ... code).
PROS: This will probably generate smaller programs and stress the I$ less. (Lookup the OpenCL select function to see a more general approach for your case.)
CONS: We've basically punted and decided to evaluate every "case in the switch". If input is usually the same value, we're wasting time here.
Lookup-table based approaches (my example).
PROS: If the switch you are evaluating has a massive number of cases (branches), but can be indexed by integer you might be ahead to just use a lookup table. On some hardware this means a read from global memory (far far away). Other architectures have a dedicated constant cache, but I understand that a vector lookup will serialize (K cycles for each channel). So it might be only marginally better than the global memory table. However, the code table-lookup generated will be short (I$ friendly) and as the number of branches (case statements) grow this will win in the limit. This approach also deals well with uniform/scattered distributions of input's value.
CONS: The read from global memory (or serialized access from the constant cache) has a big latency even compared to branching. In some cases, to eliminate the extra memory traffic I've seen compilers convert lookup tables into if-then-else/switch chains. It's rare that we have 100 element case statements.
I am now inspired to go study this cutoff. :-)
Related
Sometimes the value of a variable accessed within the control-flow of a program cannot possibly have any effect on a its output. For example:
global var_1
global var_2
start program hello(var_3, var_4)
if (var_2 < 0) then
save-log-to-disk (var_1, var_3, var_4)
end-if
return ("Hello " + var_3 + ", my name is " + var_1)
end program
Here only var_1 and var_3 have any influence on the output, while var_2 and var_4 are only used for side effects.
Do variables such as var_1 and var_3 have a name in dataflow-theory/compiler-theory?
Which static dataflow analysis techniques can be used to discover them?
References to academic literature on the subject would be particularly appreciated.
The problem that you stated is undecidable in general,
even for the following very narrow special case:
Given a single routine P(x), where x is a parameter of type integer. Is the output of P(x) independent of the value of x, i.e., does
P(0) = P(1) = P(2) = ...?
We can reduce the following still undecidable version of the halting problem to the question above: Given a Turing machine M(), does the program
never stop on the empty input?
I assume that we use a (Turing-complete) language in which we can build a "Turing machine simulator":
Given the program M(), construct this routine:
P(x):
if x == 0:
return 0
Run M() for x steps
if M() has terminated then:
return 1
else:
return 0
Now:
P(0) = P(1) = P(2) = ...
=>
M() does not terminate.
M() does terminate
=> P(x) = 1 for a sufficiently large x
=> P(x) != P(0) = 0
So, it is very difficult for a compiler to decide whether a variable actually does not influence the return value of a routine; in your example, the "side effect routine" might manipulate one of its values (or even loop infinitely, which would most definitely change the return value of the routine ;-)
Of course overapproximations are still possible. For example, one might conclude that a variable does not influence the return value if it does not appear in the routine body at all. You can also see some classical compiler analyses (like Expression Simplification, Constant propagation) having the side effect of eliminating appearances of such redundant variables.
Pachelbel has discussed the fact that you cannot do this perfectly. OK, I'm an engineer, I'm willing to accept some dirt in my answer.
The classic way to answer you question is to do dataflow tracing from program outputs back to program inputs. A dataflow is the connection of a program assignment (or sideeffect) to a variable value, to a place in the application that consumes that value.
If there is (transitive) dataflow from a program output that you care about (in your example, the printed text stream) to an input you supplied (var2), then that input "affects" the output. A variable that does not flow from the input to your desired output is useless from your point of view.
If you focus your attention only the computations involved in the dataflows, and display them, you get what is generally called a "program slice" . There are (very few) commercial tools that can show this to you.
Grammatech has a good reputation here for C and C++.
There are standard compiler algorithms for constructing such dataflow graphs; see any competent compiler book.
They all suffer from some limitation due to Turing's impossibility proofs as pointed out by Pachelbel. When you implement such a dataflow algorithm, there will be places that it cannot know the right answer; simply pick one.
If your algorithm chooses to answer "there is no dataflow" in certain places where it is not sure, then it may miss a valid dataflow and it might report that a variable does not affect the answer incorrectly. (This is called a "false negative"). This occasional error may be satisfactory if
the algorithm has some other nice properties, e.g, it runs really fast on a millions of code. (The trivial algorithm simply says "no dataflow" in all places, and it is really fast :)
If your algorithm chooses to answer "yes there is a dataflow", then it may claim that some variable affects the answer when it does not. (This is called a "false positive").
You get to decide which is more important; many people prefer false positives when looking for a problem, because then you have to at least look at possibilities detected by the tool. A false negative means it didn't report something you might care about. YMMV.
Here's a starting reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data-flow_analysis
Any of the books on that page will be pretty good. I have Muchnick's book and like it lot. See also this page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_slicing)
You will discover that implementing this is pretty big effort, for any real langauge. You are probably better off finding a tool framework that does most or all this for you already.
I use the following algorithm: a variable is used if it is a parameter or it occurs anywhere in an expression, excluding as the LHS of an assignment. First, count the number of uses of all variables. Delete unused variables and assignments to unused variables. Repeat until no variables are deleted.
This algorithm only implements a subset of the OP's requirement, it is horribly inefficient because it requires multiple passes. A garbage collection may be faster but is harder to write: my algorithm only requires a list of variables with usage counts. Each pass is linear in the size of the program. The algorithm effectively does a limited kind of dataflow analysis by elimination of the tail of a flow ending in an assignment.
For my language the elimination of side effects in the RHS of an assignment to an unused variable is mandated by the language specification, it may not be suitable for other languages. Effectiveness is improved by running before inlining to reduce the cost of inlining unused function applications, then running it again afterwards which eliminates parameters of inlined functions.
Just as an example of the utility of the language specification, the library constructs a thread pool and assigns a pointer to it to a global variable. If the thread pool is not used, the assignment is deleted, and hence the construction of the thread pool elided.
IMHO compiler optimisations are almost invariably heuristics whose performance matters more than effectiveness achieving a theoretical goal (like removing unused variables). Simple reductions are useful not only because they're fast and easy to write, but because a programmer using a language who understand basics of the compiler operation can leverage this knowledge to help the compiler. The most well known example of this is probably the refactoring of recursive functions to place the recursion in tail position: a pointless exercise unless the programmer knows the compiler can do tail-recursion optimisation.
Recently I realized I have been doing too much branching without caring the negative impact on performance it had, therefore I have made up my mind to attempt to learn all about not branching. And here is a more extreme case, in attempt to make the code to have as little branch as possible.
Hence for the code
if(expression)
A = C; //A and C have to be the same type here obviously
expression can be A == B, or Q<=B, it could be anything that resolve to true or false, or i would like to think of it in term of the result being 1 or 0 here
I have come up with this non branching version
A += (expression)*(C-A); //Edited with thanks
So my question would be, is this a good solution that maximize efficiency?
If yes why and if not why?
Depends on the compiler, instruction set, optimizer, etc. When you use a boolean expression as an int value, e.g., (A == B) * C, the compiler has to do the compare, and the set some register to 0 or 1 based on the result. Some instruction sets might not have any way to do that other than branching. Generally speaking, it's better to write simple, straightforward code and let the optimizer figure it out, or find a different algorithm that branches less.
Jeez, no, don't do that!
Anyone who "penalize[s] [you] a lot for branching" would hopefully send you packing for using something that awful.
How is it awful, let me count the ways:
There's no guarantee you can multiply a quantity (e.g., C) by a boolean value (e.g., (A==B) yields true or false). Some languages will, some won't.
Anyone casually reading it is going observe a calculation, not an assignment statement.
You're replacing a comparison, and a conditional branch with two comparisons, two multiplications, a subtraction, and an addition. Seriously non-optimal.
It only works for integral numeric quantities. Try this with a wide variety of floating point numbers, or with an object, and if you're really lucky it will be rejected by the compiler/interpreter/whatever.
You should only ever consider doing this if you had analyzed the runtime properties of the program and determined that there is a frequent branch misprediction here, and that this is causing an actual performance problem. It makes the code much less clear, and its not obvious that it would be any faster in general (this is something you would also have to measure, under the circumstances you are interested in).
After doing research, I came to the conclusion that when there are bottleneck, it would be good to include timed profiler, as these kind of codes are usually not portable and are mainly used for optimization.
An exact example I had after reading the following question below
Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?
I tested my code on C++ using that, that my implementation was actually slower due to the extra arithmetics.
HOWEVER!
For this case below
if(expression) //branched version
A += C;
//OR
A += (expression)*(C); //non-branching version
The timing was as of such.
Branched Sorted list was approximately 2seconds.
Branched unsorted list was aproximately 10 seconds.
My implementation (whether sorted or unsorted) are both 3seconds.
This goes to show that in an unsorted area of bottleneck, when we have a trivial branching that can be simply replaced by a single multiplication.
It is probably more worthwhile to consider the implementation that I have suggested.
** Once again it is mainly for the areas that is deemed as the bottleneck **
I saw a sentence in a paper "Transforming branches into data dependencies to avoid mispredicted branches." (Page 6)
I wonder how to change the code from branches into data dependencies.
This is the paper: http://www.adms-conf.org/p1-SCHLEGEL.pdf
Update: How to transform branches in the binary search?
The basic idea (I would presume) would be to change something like:
if (a>b)
return "A is greater than B";
else
return "A is less than or equal to B";
into:
static char const *strings[] = {
"A is less than or equal to B",
"A is greater than B"
};
return strings[a>b];
For branches in a binary search, let's consider the basic idea of the "normal" binary search, which typically looks (at least vaguely) like this:
while (left < right) {
middle = (left + right)/2;
if (search_for < array[middle])
right = middle;
else
left = middle;
}
We could get rid of most of the branching here in pretty much the same way:
size_t positions[] = {left, right};
while (left < right) {
size_t middle = (left + right)/2;
positions[search_for >= array[middle]] = middle;
}
[For general purpose code use left + (right-left)/2 instead of (left+right)/2.]
We do still have the branching for the loop itself, of course, but we're generally a lot less concerned about that--that branch is extremely amenable to prediction, so even if we did eliminate it, doing so would gain little as a rule.
Removing branches is not always optimal, even (especially) with simple binary conditions like this. I have looked into removing branches in a similar manner in various circumstances before. After running into an instance where code with a conditional branch in a loop ran faster than equivalent, branch-less code, I did some research on processor execution strategies.
I knew that the ARM instruction set had conditional instructions, which could make a conditional branch faster than the kind of branch-less code in the paper, but I was working on an intel (and the branch was not one that cmove could take care of). It turns out that modern CPUs, including intel, will sometimes turn an ordinary instruction into a conditional one: they use eager execution if the two end points of the branch are sufficiently short. That is, the CPU will put both possible paths in the pipeline and execute them both and only keep the correct result once the condition is known. This avoids the possibility of a mis-prediction without having to index an array. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_execution#Variants for more information.
It takes a lot of detailed knowledge of a processor to write optimal code for it, even in assembly. This makes it possible for "naive" implementations to sometimes be faster than hand-optimized ones that overlook certain CPU characteristics. The same thing can happen with optimizing compilers: sometimes writing more complicated "optimized" code breaks some of the compiler's optimizations and results in a slower executable than a naive implementation that the compiler can optimize fully.
When in doubt and performance is critical and there is time, it is usually best to try it both ways and see which is faster!
Consider something like...
for (int i = 0; i < test.size(); ++i) {
test[i].foo();
test[i].bar();
}
Now consider..
for (int i = 0; i < test.size(); ++i) {
test[i].foo();
}
for (int i = 0; i < test.size(); ++i) {
test[i].bar();
}
Is there a large difference in time spent between these two? I.e. what is the cost of the actual iteration? It seems like the only real operations you are repeating are an increment and a comparison (though I suppose this would become significant for a very large n). Am I missing something?
First, as noted above, if your compiler can't optimize the size() method out so it's just called once, or is nothing more than a single read (no function call overhead), then it will hurt.
There is a second effect you may want to be concerned with, though. If your container size is large enough, then the first case will perform faster. This is because, when it gets to test[i].bar(), test[i] will be cached. The second case, with split loops, will thrash the cache, since test[i] will always need to be reloaded from main memory for each function.
Worse, if your container (std::vector, I'm guessing) has so many items that it won't all fit in memory, and some of it has to live in swap on your disk, then the difference will be huge as you have to load things in from disk twice.
However, there is one final thing that you have to consider: all this only makes a difference if there is no order dependency between the function calls (really, between different objects in the container). Because, if you work it out, the first case does:
test[0].foo();
test[0].bar();
test[1].foo();
test[1].bar();
test[2].foo();
test[2].bar();
// ...
test[test.size()-1].foo();
test[test.size()-1].bar();
while the second does:
test[0].foo();
test[1].foo();
test[2].foo();
// ...
test[test.size()-1].foo();
test[0].bar();
test[1].bar();
test[2].bar();
// ...
test[test.size()-1].bar();
So if your bar() assumes that all foo()'s have run, you will break it if you change the second case to the first. Likewise, if bar() assumes that foo() has not been run on later objects, then moving from the second case to the first will break your code.
So be careful and document what you do.
There are many aspects in such comparison.
First, complexity for both options is O(n), so difference isn't very big anyway. I mean, you must not care about it if you write quite big and complex program with a large n and "heavy" operations .foo() and bar(). So, you must care about it only in case of very small simple programs (this is kind of programs for embedded devices, for example).
Second, it will depend on programming language and compiler. I'm assured that, for instance, most of C++ compilers will optimize your second option to produce same code as for the first one.
Third, if compiler haven't optimized your code, performance difference will heavily depend on the target processor. Consider loop in a term of assembly commands - it will look something like this (pseudo assembly language):
LABEL L1:
do this ;; some commands
call that
IF condition
goto L1
;; some more instructions, ELSE part
I.e. every loop passage is just IF statement. But modern processors don't like IF. This is because processors may rearrange instructions to execute them beforehand or just to avoid idles. With the IF (in fact, conditional goto or jump) instructions, processors do not know if they may rearrange operation or not.
There's also a mechanism called branch predictor. From material of Wikipedia:
branch predictor is a digital circuit that tries to guess which way a branch (e.g. an if-then-else structure) will go before this is known for sure.
This "soften" effect of IF's, through if the predictor's guess is wrong, no optimization will be performed.
So, you can see that there's a big amount of conditions for both your options: target language and compiler, target machine, it's processor and branch predictor. This all makes very complex system, and you cannot foresee what exact result you will get. I believe, that if you don't deal with embedded systems or something like that, the best solution is just to use the form which your are more comfortable with.
For your examples you have the additional concern of how expensive .size() is, since it's compared for each time i increments in most languages.
How expensive is it? Well that depends, it's certainly all relative. If .foo() and .bar() are expensive, the cost of the actual iteration is probably minuscule in comparison. If they're pretty lightweight, then it'll be a larger percentage of your execution time. If you want to know about a particular case test it, this is the only way to be sure about your specific scenario.
Personally, I'd go with the single iteration to be on the cheap side for sure (unless you need the .foo() calls to happen before the .bar() calls).
I assume .size() will be constant. Otherwise, the first code example might not give the same as the second one.
Most compilers would probably store .size() in a variable before the loop starts, so the .size() time will be cut down.
Therefore the time of the stuff inside the two for loops will be the same, but the other part will be twice as much.
Performance tag, right.
As long as you are concentrating on the "cost" of this or that minor code segment, you are oblivious to the bigger picture (isolation); and your intention is to justify something that, at a higher level (outside your isolated context), is simply bad practice, and breaks guidelines. The question is too low level and therefore too isolated. A system or program which is set of integrated components will perform much better that a collection of isolated components.
The fact that this or that isolated component (work inside the loop) is fast or faster is irrelevant when the loop itself is repeated unnecessarily, and which would therefore take twice the time.
Given that you have one family car (CPU), why on Earth would you:
sit at home and send your wife out to do her shopping
wait until she returns
take the car, go out and do your shopping
leaving her to wait until you return
If it needs to be stated, you would spend (a) almost half of your hard-earned resources executing one trip and shopping at the same time and (b) have those resources available to have fun together when you get home.
It has nothing to do with the price of petrol at 9:00 on a Saturday, or the time it takes to grind coffee at the café, or cost of each iteration.
Yes, there is a large diff in the time and the resources used. But the cost is not merely in the overhead per iteration; it is in the overall cost of the one organised trip vs the two serial trips.
Performance is about architecture; never doing anything twice (that you can do once), which are the higher levels of organisation; integrated of the parts that make up the whole. It is not about counting pennies at the bowser or cycles per iteration; those are lower orders of organisation; which ajust a collection of fragmented parts (not a systemic whole).
Masseratis cannot get through traffic jams any faster than station wagons.
Is it because Pascal was designed to be so, or are there any tradeoffs?
Or what are the pros and cons to forbid or not forbid modification of the counter inside a for-block? IMHO, there is little use to modify the counter inside a for-block.
EDIT:
Could you provide one example where we need to modify the counter inside the for-block?
It is hard to choose between wallyk's answer and cartoonfox's answer,since both answer are so nice.Cartoonfox analysis the problem from language aspect,while wallyk analysis the problem from the history and the real-world aspect.Anyway,thanks for all of your answers and I'd like to give my special thanks to wallyk.
In programming language theory (and in computability theory) WHILE and FOR loops have different theoretical properties:
a WHILE loop may never terminate (the expression could just be TRUE)
the finite number of times a FOR loop is to execute is supposed to be known before it starts executing. You're supposed to know that FOR loops always terminate.
The FOR loop present in C doesn't technically count as a FOR loop because you don't necessarily know how many times the loop will iterate before executing it. (i.e. you can hack the loop counter to run forever)
The class of problems you can solve with WHILE loops is strictly more powerful than those you could have solved with the strict FOR loop found in Pascal.
Pascal is designed this way so that students have two different loop constructs with different computational properties. (If you implemented FOR the C-way, the FOR loop would just be an alternative syntax for while...)
In strictly theoretical terms, you shouldn't ever need to modify the counter within a for loop. If you could get away with it, you'd just have an alternative syntax for a WHILE loop.
You can find out more about "while loop computability" and "for loop computability" in these CS lecture notes: http://www-compsci.swan.ac.uk/~csjvt/JVTTeaching/TPL.html
Another such property btw is that the loopvariable is undefined after the for loop. This also makes optimization easier
Pascal was first implemented for the CDC Cyber—a 1960s and 1970s mainframe—which like many CPUs today, had excellent sequential instruction execution performance, but also a significant performance penalty for branches. This and other characteristics of the Cyber architecture probably heavily influenced Pascal's design of for loops.
The Short Answer is that allowing assignment of a loop variable would require extra guard code and messed up optimization for loop variables which could ordinarily be handled well in 18-bit index registers. In those days, software performance was highly valued due to the expense of the hardware and inability to speed it up any other way.
Long Answer
The Control Data Corporation 6600 family, which includes the Cyber, is a RISC architecture using 60-bit central memory words referenced by 18-bit addresses. Some models had an (expensive, therefore uncommon) option, the Compare-Move Unit (CMU), for directly addressing 6-bit character fields, but otherwise there was no support for "bytes" of any sort. Since the CMU could not be counted on in general, most Cyber code was generated for its absence. Ten characters per word was the usual data format until support for lowercase characters gave way to a tentative 12-bit character representation.
Instructions are 15 bits or 30 bits long, except for the CMU instructions being effectively 60 bits long. So up to 4 instructions packed into each word, or two 30 bit, or a pair of 15 bit and one 30 bit. 30 bit instructions cannot span words. Since branch destinations may only reference words, jump targets are word-aligned.
The architecture has no stack. In fact, the procedure call instruction RJ is intrinsically non-re-entrant. RJ modifies the first word of the called procedure by writing a jump to the next instruction after where the RJ instruction is. Called procedures return to the caller by jumping to their beginning, which is reserved for return linkage. Procedures begin at the second word. To implement recursion, most compilers made use of a helper function.
The register file has eight instances each of three kinds of register, A0..A7 for address manipulation, B0..B7 for indexing, and X0..X7 for general arithmetic. A and B registers are 18 bits; X registers are 60 bits. Setting A1 through A5 has the side effect of loading the corresponding X1 through X5 register with the contents of the loaded address. Setting A6 or A7 writes the corresponding X6 or X7 contents to the address loaded into the A register. A0 and X0 are not connected. The B registers can be used in virtually every instruction as a value to add or subtract from any other A, B, or X register. Hence they are great for small counters.
For efficient code, a B register is used for loop variables since direct comparison instructions can be used on them (B2 < 100, etc.); comparisons with X registers are limited to relations to zero, so comparing an X register to 100, say, requires subtracting 100 and testing the result for less than zero, etc. If an assignment to the loop variable were allowed, a 60-bit value would have to be range-checked before assignment to the B register. This is a real hassle. Herr Wirth probably figured that both the hassle and the inefficiency wasn't worth the utility--the programmer can always use a while or repeat...until loop in that situation.
Additional weirdness
Several unique-to-Pascal language features relate directly to aspects of the Cyber:
the pack keyword: either a single "character" consumes a 60-bit word, or it is packed ten characters per word.
the (unusual) alfa type: packed array [1..10] of char
intrinsic procedures pack() and unpack() to deal with packed characters. These perform no transformation on modern architectures, only type conversion.
the weirdness of text files vs. file of char
no explicit newline character. Record management was explicitly invoked with writeln
While set of char was very useful on CDCs, it was unsupported on many subsequent 8 bit machines due to its excess memory use (32-byte variables/constants for 8-bit ASCII). In contrast, a single Cyber word could manage the native 62-character set by omitting newline and something else.
full expression evaluation (versus shortcuts). These were implemented not by jumping and setting one or zero (as most code generators do today), but by using CPU instructions implementing Boolean arithmetic.
Pascal was originally designed as a teaching language to encourage block-structured programming. Kernighan (the K of K&R) wrote an (understandably biased) essay on Pascal's limitations, Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language.
The prohibition on modifying what Pascal calls the control variable of a for loop, combined with the lack of a break statement means that it is possible to know how many times the loop body is executed without studying its contents.
Without a break statement, and not being able to use the control variable after the loop terminates is more of a restriction than not being able to modify the control variable inside the loop as it prevents some string and array processing algorithms from being written in the "obvious" way.
These and other difference between Pascal and C reflect the different philosophies with which they were first designed: Pascal to enforce a concept of "correct" design, C to permit more or less anything, no matter how dangerous.
(Note: Delphi does have a Break statement however, as well as Continue, and Exit which is like return in C.)
Clearly we never need to be able to modify the control variable in a for loop, because we can always rewrite using a while loop. An example in C where such behaviour is used can be found in K&R section 7.3, where a simple version of printf() is introduced. The code that handles '%' sequences within a format string fmt is:
for (p = fmt; *p; p++) {
if (*p != '%') {
putchar(*p);
continue;
}
switch (*++p) {
case 'd':
/* handle integers */
break;
case 'f':
/* handle floats */
break;
case 's':
/* handle strings */
break;
default:
putchar(*p);
break;
}
}
Although this uses a pointer as the loop variable, it could equally have been written with an integer index into the string:
for (i = 0; i < strlen(fmt); i++) {
if (fmt[i] != '%') {
putchar(fmt[i]);
continue;
}
switch (fmt[++i]) {
case 'd':
/* handle integers */
break;
case 'f':
/* handle floats */
break;
case 's':
/* handle strings */
break;
default:
putchar(fmt[i]);
break;
}
}
It can make some optimizations (loop unrolling for instance) easier: no need for complicated static analysis to determine if the loop behavior is predictable or not.
From For loop
In some languages (not C or C++) the
loop variable is immutable within the
scope of the loop body, with any
attempt to modify its value being
regarded as a semantic error. Such
modifications are sometimes a
consequence of a programmer error,
which can be very difficult to
identify once made. However only overt
changes are likely to be detected by
the compiler. Situations where the
address of the loop variable is passed
as an argument to a subroutine make it
very difficult to check, because the
routine's behaviour is in general
unknowable to the compiler.
So this seems to be to help you not burn your hand later on.
Disclaimer: It has been decades since I last did PASCAL, so my syntax may not be exactly correct.
You have to remember that PASCAL is Nicklaus Wirth's child, and Wirth cared very strongly about reliability and understandability when he designed PASCAL (and all of its successors).
Consider the following code fragment:
FOR I := 1 TO 42 (* THE UNIVERSAL ANSWER *) DO FOO(I);
Without looking at procedure FOO, answer these questions: Does this loop ever end? How do you know? How many times is procedure FOO called in the loop? How do you know?
PASCAL forbids modifying the index variable in the loop body so that it is POSSIBLE to know the answers to those questions, and know that the answers won't change when and if procedure FOO changes.
It's probably safe to conclude that Pascal was designed to prevent modification of a for loop index inside the loop. It's worth noting that Pascal is by no means the only language which prevents programmers doing this, Fortran is another example.
There are two compelling reasons for designing a language that way:
Programs, specifically the for loops in them, are easier to understand and therefore easier to write and to modify and to verify.
Loops are easier to optimise if the compiler knows that the trip count through a loop is established before entry to the loop and invariant thereafter.
For many algorithms this behaviour is the required behaviour; updating all the elements in an array for example. If memory serves Pascal also provides do-while loops and repeat-until loops. Most, I guess, algorithms which are implemented in C-style languages with modifications to the loop index variable or breaks out of the loop could just as easily be implemented with these alternative forms of loop.
I've scratched my head and failed to find a compelling reason for allowing the modification of a loop index variable inside the loop, but then I've always regarded doing so as bad design, and the selection of the right loop construct as an element of good design.
Regards
Mark