Trying to solve a simple duplicate check using an l1 cache using either of these 2 libraries https://github.com/patrickmn/go-cache or https://github.com/karlseguin/ccache
Several goroutines are executed which fetch a large amount of data from an upstream API. Inside of each, there is a for range loop which checks if the key is a hit or a miss. In case of a hit, the loop should skip and continue onto the next iteration. As you may have guessed, the cache should be concurrency safe. I also instantiate only 1 instance of this cache (x.cacheInstance).
for _, record := range data {
...
exists := x.cacheInstance.Get(record.DocumentID)
if exists == nil {
x.cacheInstance.Set(record.DocumentID, true, time.Minute * 10)
} else {
c.logger.Warnw("DocumentID duplicate located", "documentID", record.DocumentID)
continue
}
...
}
However, the application seems to hang, and not continue iterating over records. Commenting the lru cache check fixes the problem, allowing the program to run as expected.
I have the following code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
func main() {
switch {
case 1 == 1:
fmt.Println("1 == 1")
fallthrough
case 2 == 1:
fmt.Println("2 == 1")
}
}
Which prints both lines on the go playground - see example here. I would have expected the fallthrough statement to include evaluation of the next case statement, but this seems not to be the case.
Of course, I can always use a bunch of if statements, so this is not a real impediment, but I am curious what the intention here is, since this seems to me to be a non-obvious result.
Anyone care to explain? For example: in this code, how can I get the 1st and 3rd cases to execute?
Switch is not a bunch of ifs. It's more akin to if {} else if {} construct, but with a couple of twists - namely break and fallthrough. It's not possible to make switch execute first and third cases - a switch does not check each condition, it finds first match and executes it. That's all.
It's primary purpose is to walk through a list of possible values and execute a different code for each value. In fact, in C (where switch statement came from) switch expression can only be of integral type and case values can only be constants that switch expression will be compared too. It's only relatively recently, languages started adding support for strings, boolean expressions etc in switch cases.
As to fallthrough logic it also comes from C. There is no fallthrough operator in C. In C execution falls through into next case (without checking case values) unless break operator encountered. The reason for this design is that sometimes you need to do something special and then do same steps as in another case. So, this design merely allows that. Unfortunately, it's rather rarely useful, so falling through by default was causing more trouble when programmer forgotten to put a break statement in, then actually helping when truly omitted that break intentionally. So, many modern languages change this logic to never fall through by default and to require explicit fallthrough statement if falling through is actually required.
Unfortunately, it's a it hard to come up with a non contrived example of fallthrough being useful that would be short enough to fit into an answer. As I said it's relatively rare. But sometimes you need to write code similar to this:
if x == a || x == b {
if x == a {
// do action a
}
// do action ab
} else if x == c {
// do action c
} else if x == d {
// do action d
}
In fact, I needed code of similar structure quite recently in one of my projects. So, I used switch statement instead. And it looked like this:
switch x {
case a: // do action a
fallthrough
case b: // do action ab
case c: // do action c
case d: // do action d
}
And your switch from the question is functionally equivalent to this:
if 1 == 1 || 2 == 1 {
if 1 == 1 {
fmt.Println("1 == 1")
}
fmt.Println("2 == 1")
}
Presumably, Go's fallthrough behavior is modeled after C, which always worked like this. In C, switch statements are just shorthands for chains of conditional gotos, so your particular example would be compiled as if it was written like:
# Pseudocode
if 1 == 1 goto alpha
if 2 == 1 goto beta
alpha:
fmt.Println("1 == 1")
beta:
fmt.Println("2 == 1")
As you can see, once execution enters the alpha case, it would just keep flowing down, ignoring the beta label (since labels by themselves don't really do anything). The conditional checks have already happened and won't happen again.
Hence, the non-intuitive nature of fallthrough switch statements is simply because switch statements are thinly veiled goto statements.
From the language spec:
A "fallthrough" statement transfers control to the first statement of the next case clause in an expression "switch" statement. It may be used only as the final non-empty statement in such a clause.
That seems to perfectly describe your observed behavior.
The compilers I've been using in C or Java have dead code prevention (warning when a line won't ever be executed). My professor says that this problem can never be fully solved by compilers though. I was wondering why that is. I am not too familiar with the actual coding of compilers as this is a theory-based class. But I was wondering what they check (such as possible input strings vs acceptable inputs, etc.), and why that is insufficient.
The dead code problem is related to the Halting problem.
Alan Turing proved that it is impossible to write a general algorithm that will be given a program and be able to decide whether that program halts for all inputs. You may be able to write such an algorithm for specific types of programs, but not for all programs.
How does this relate to dead code?
The Halting problem is reducible to the problem of finding dead code. That is, if you find an algorithm that can detect dead code in any program, then you can use that algorithm to test whether any program will halt. Since that has been proven to be impossible, it follows that writing an algorithm for dead code is impossible as well.
How do you transfer an algorithm for dead code into an algorithm for the Halting problem?
Simple: you add a line of code after the end of the program you want to check for halt. If your dead-code detector detects that this line is dead, then you know that the program does not halt. If it doesn't, then you know that your program halts (gets to the last line, and then to your added line of code).
Compilers usually check for things that can be proven at compile-time to be dead. For example, blocks that are dependent on conditions that can be determined to be false at compile time. Or any statement after a return (within the same scope).
These are specific cases, and therefore it's possible to write an algorithm for them. It may be possible to write algorithms for more complicated cases (like an algorithm that checks whether a condition is syntactically a contradiction and therefore will always return false), but still, that wouldn't cover all possible cases.
Well, let's take the classical proof of the undecidability of the halting problem and change the halting-detector to a dead-code detector!
C# program
using System;
using YourVendor.Compiler;
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string quine_text = #"using System;
using YourVendor.Compiler;
class Program
{{
static void Main(string[] args)
{{
string quine_text = #{0}{1}{0};
quine_text = string.Format(quine_text, (char)34, quine_text);
if (YourVendor.Compiler.HasDeadCode(quine_text))
{{
System.Console.WriteLine({0}Dead code!{0});
}}
}}
}}";
quine_text = string.Format(quine_text, (char)34, quine_text);
if (YourVendor.Compiler.HasDeadCode(quine_text))
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Dead code!");
}
}
}
If YourVendor.Compiler.HasDeadCode(quine_text) returns false, then the line System.Console.WriteLn("Dead code!"); won't be ever executed, so this program actually does have dead code, and the detector was wrong.
But if it returns true, then the line System.Console.WriteLn("Dead code!"); will be executed, and since there is no more code in the program, there is no dead code at all, so again, the detector was wrong.
So there you have it, a dead-code detector that returns only "There is dead code" or "There is no dead code" must sometimes yield wrong answers.
If the halting problem is too obscure, think of it this way.
Take a mathematical problem that is believed to be true for all positive integer's n, but hasn't been proven to be true for every n. A good example would be Goldbach's conjecture, that any positive even integer greater than two can be represented by the sum of two primes. Then (with an appropriate bigint library) run this program (pseudocode follows):
for (BigInt n = 4; ; n+=2) {
if (!isGoldbachsConjectureTrueFor(n)) {
print("Conjecture is false for at least one value of n\n");
exit(0);
}
}
Implementation of isGoldbachsConjectureTrueFor() is left as an exercise for the reader but for this purpose could be a simple iteration over all primes less than n
Now, logically the above must either be the equivalent of:
for (; ;) {
}
(i.e. an infinite loop) or
print("Conjecture is false for at least one value of n\n");
as Goldbach's conjecture must either be true or not true. If a compiler could always eliminate dead code, there would definitely be dead code to eliminate here in either case. However, in doing so at the very least your compiler would need to solve arbitrarily hard problems. We could provide problems provably hard that it would have to solve (e.g. NP-complete problems) to determine which bit of code to eliminate. For instance if we take this program:
String target = "f3c5ac5a63d50099f3b5147cabbbd81e89211513a92e3dcd2565d8c7d302ba9c";
for (BigInt n = 0; n < 2**2048; n++) {
String s = n.toString();
if (sha256(s).equals(target)) {
print("Found SHA value\n");
exit(0);
}
}
print("Not found SHA value\n");
we know that the program will either print out "Found SHA value" or "Not found SHA value" (bonus points if you can tell me which one is true). However, for a compiler to be able to reasonably optimise that would take of the order of 2^2048 iterations. It would in fact be a great optimisation as I predict the above program would (or might) run until the heat death of the universe rather than printing anything without optimisation.
I don't know if C++ or Java have an Eval type function, but many languages do allow you do call methods by name. Consider the following (contrived) VBA example.
Dim methodName As String
If foo Then
methodName = "Bar"
Else
methodName = "Qux"
End If
Application.Run(methodName)
The name of the method to be called is impossible to know until runtime. Therefore, by definition, the compiler cannot know with absolute certainty that a particular method is never called.
Actually, given the example of calling a method by name, the branching logic isn't even necessary. Simply saying
Application.Run("Bar")
Is more than the compiler can determine. When the code is compiled, all the compiler knows is that a certain string value is being passed to that method. It doesn't check to see if that method exists until runtime. If the method isn't called elsewhere, through more normal methods, an attempt to find dead methods can return false positives. The same issue exists in any language that allows code to be called via reflection.
Unconditional dead code can be detected and removed by advanced compilers.
But there is also conditional dead code. That is code that cannot be known at the time of compilation and can only be detected during runtime. For example, a software may be configurable to include or exclude certain features depending on user preference, making certain sections of code seemingly dead in particular scenarios. That is not be real dead code.
There are specific tools that can do testing, resolve dependencies, remove conditional dead code and recombine the useful code at runtime for efficiency. This is called dynamic dead code elimination. But as you can see it is beyond the scope of compilers.
A simple example:
int readValueFromPort(const unsigned int portNum);
int x = readValueFromPort(0x100); // just an example, nothing meaningful
if (x < 2)
{
std::cout << "Hey! X < 2" << std::endl;
}
else
{
std::cout << "X is too big!" << std::endl;
}
Now assume that the port 0x100 is designed to return only 0 or 1. In that case the compiler cannot figure out that the else block will never be executed.
However in this basic example:
bool boolVal = /*anything boolean*/;
if (boolVal)
{
// Do A
}
else if (!boolVal)
{
// Do B
}
else
{
// Do C
}
Here the compiler can calculate out the the else block is a dead code.
So the compiler can warn about the dead code only if it has enough data to to figure out the dead code and also it should know how to apply that data in order to figure out if the given block is a dead code.
EDIT
Sometimes the data is just not available at the compilation time:
// File a.cpp
bool boolMethod();
bool boolVal = boolMethod();
if (boolVal)
{
// Do A
}
else
{
// Do B
}
//............
// File b.cpp
bool boolMethod()
{
return true;
}
While compiling a.cpp the compiler cannot know that boolMethod always returns true.
The compiler will always lack some context information. E.g. you might know, that a double value never exeeds 2, because that is a feature of the mathematical function, you use from a library. The compiler does not even see the code in the library, and it can never know all features of all mathematical functions, and detect all weired and complicated ways to implement them.
The compiler doesn't necessarily see the whole program. I could have a program that calls a shared library, which calls back into a function in my program which isn't called directly.
So a function which is dead with respect to the library it's compiled against could become alive if that library was changed at runtime.
If a compiler could eliminate all dead code accurately, it would be called an interpreter.
Consider this simple scenario:
if (my_func()) {
am_i_dead();
}
my_func() can contain arbitrary code and in order for the compiler to determine whether it returns true or false, it will either have to run the code or do something that is functionally equivalent to running the code.
The idea of a compiler is that it only performs a partial analysis of the code, thus simplifying the job of a separate running environment. If you perform a full analysis, that isn't a compiler any more.
If you consider the compiler as a function c(), where c(source)=compiled code, and the running environment as r(), where r(compiled code)=program output, then to determine the output for any source code you have to compute the value of r(c(source code)). If calculating c() requires the knowledge of the value of r(c()) for any input, there is no need for a separate r() and c(): you can just derive a function i() from c() such that i(source)=program output.
Others have commented on the halting problem and so forth. These generally apply to portions of functions. However it can be hard/impossible to know whether even an entire type (class/etc) is used or not.
In .NET/Java/JavaScript and other runtime driven environments there's nothing stopping types being loaded via reflection. This is popular with dependency injection frameworks, and is even harder to reason about in the face of deserialisation or dynamic module loading.
The compiler cannot know whether such types would be loaded. Their names could come from external config files at runtime.
You might like to search around for tree shaking which is a common term for tools that attempt to safely remove unused subgraphs of code.
Take a function
void DoSomeAction(int actnumber)
{
switch(actnumber)
{
case 1: Action1(); break;
case 2: Action2(); break;
case 3: Action3(); break;
}
}
Can you prove that actnumber will never be 2 so that Action2() is never called...?
I disagree about the halting problem. I wouldn't call such code dead even though in reality it will never be reached.
Instead, lets consider:
for (int N = 3;;N++)
for (int A = 2; A < int.MaxValue; A++)
for (int B = 2; B < int.MaxValue; B++)
{
int Square = Math.Pow(A, N) + Math.Pow(B, N);
float Test = Math.Sqrt(Square);
if (Test == Math.Trunc(Test))
FermatWasWrong();
}
private void FermatWasWrong()
{
Press.Announce("Fermat was wrong!");
Nobel.Claim();
}
(Ignore the type and overflow errors) Dead code?
Look at this example:
public boolean isEven(int i){
if(i % 2 == 0)
return true;
if(i % 2 == 1)
return false;
return false;
}
The compiler can't know that an int can only be even or odd. Therefore the compiler must be able to understand the semantics of your code. How should this be implemented? The compiler can't ensure that the lowest return will never be executed. Therefore the compiler can't detect the dead code.
today I knew ABA problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABA_problem
By the way, suddenly, i just like to know why called "ABA" problem? abbreviation?
ABA is not an acronym and is a shortcut for stating that a value at a
shared location can change from A to B and then back to A :)
As far as I know, the problem is related to threads interleaving. So I think it comes as a short textual representation of interleaving. First, run a thread A, then switch to thread B, then get back to thread A.
Assume you have two threads, and one is checking a global character whether there's new data:
char flag = 'n';
void alarms(){
while(true){
if(flag == 'f'){
start_fire_alarm();
}
/* ... some other things, including some waiting ...*/
}
}
void sensors(){
while(true){
if(sensor_alerts_fire()){
flag = 'f';
} else {
flag = 'n';
}
}
}
Now alarm checks the flag, sees 'n' and everything is fine. Suddenly, a fire starts, and sensors sets the flag to 'f'. But before the operating system gives alarm some time to react, the physical sensors break, and they don't alert the fire anymore. sensors() sets the flag to 'n' again, the operating system gives alarm() some time and nothing happens.
This is the ABA problem (well, in our case NFN). You don't notice in the first thread that your shared value has changed in-between, although this could be critical. Note that you can exchange char with some atomic type and all assignments/tests with atomic ones, the problem would still be the same.
Here is the program to find the factorial of a number in Go:
func factorial(x uint) uint {
if x == 0 {
return 1
}
return x * (factorial(x - 1))
}
The output for this function when called on input 5 is 120. However, if I add an else statement I get an error.
func factorial(x uint) uint {
if x == 0 {
return 1
} else {
return x * (factorial(x - 1))
}
}
Error : function ends without a return statement
I added a return at the end :
func factorial(x uint) uint {
if x == 0 {
return 1
} else {
return x * (factorial(x - 1))
}
fmt.Println("this never executes")
return 1
}
and I get back the expected output of 120.
Why would the second case cause an error? Why in the third case even though the function never reaches the last return 1, it computes the correct output?
This is a well known problem of the compiler.
There is even an issue logged : http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=65
In the words of one of the authors of the Go language:
The compilers require either a return or a panic to be lexically last
in a function with a result. This rule is easier than requiring full
flow control analysis to determine whether a function reaches the end
without returning (which is very hard in general), and simpler than
rules to enumerate easy cases such as this one. Also, being purely
lexical, the error cannot arise spontaneously due to changes in values
such as constants used in control structures inside the function.
-rob
From another comment in golang-nuts, we can infer it's not going to be "fixed" soon :
It's not a bug, it's a deliberate design decision.
-rob
Note that other languages like Java have rules allowing this else.
March 2013 EDIT - It just got changed in Go1.1 :
Before Go 1.1, a function that returned a value needed an explicit
"return" or call to panic at the end of the function; this was a
simple way to make the programmer be explicit about the meaning of the
function. But there are many cases where a final "return" is clearly
unnecessary, such as a function with only an infinite "for" loop.
In Go 1.1, the rule about final "return" statements is more
permissive. It introduces the concept of a terminating statement, a
statement that is guaranteed to be the last one a function executes.
Examples include "for" loops with no condition and "if-else"
statements in which each half ends in a "return". If the final
statement of a function can be shown syntactically to be a terminating
statement, no final "return" statement is needed.
Note that the rule is purely syntactic: it pays no attention to the
values in the code and therefore requires no complex analysis.
Updating: The change is backward-compatible, but existing code with
superfluous "return" statements and calls to panic may be simplified
manually. Such code can be identified by go vet.
And the issue I mentioned is now closed with status "Fixed".