Memory management in Forth - memory-management

Question

So I'm just learning Forth and was curious if anyone could help me understand how memory management generally works. At the moment I only have (some) experience with the C stack-vs-heap paradigm.
From what I understand, one can allocate in the Dictionary, or on the heap. Is the Dictionary faster/preferred like the stack in C? But unlike in C, there aren't scopes and automatic stack reclamation, so I'm wondering if one only uses the dictionary for global data structures (if at all).
As far as the heap goes, is it pretty much like C? Is heap management a standard (ANS) concept, or is it implementation-defined?

Answer 1

It is not Dictionary, or on the heap - the equivalent of the heap is the dictionary. However, with the severe limitation that it acts more like a stack than a heap - new words are added to the end of the dictionary (allocation by ALLOT and freeing by FORGET or FREE (but freeing all newer words - acting more like multiple POPs)).
An implementation can control the memory layout and thus implement a traditional heap (or garbage collection). An example is A FORTH implementation of the Heap Data Structure for Memory Management (1984). Another implementation is Dynamic Memory Heaps for Quartus Forth (2000).
A lot is implementation dependent or extensions. For instance, the memory layout is often with the two block buffers (location by BLOCK and TIB), the text input buffer and values and low-level/primitive functions of the language, in the lowest portion, dictionary in the middle (growing upwards) and the return stack and the parameter stack at the top 1.
The address of the first available byte above the dictionary is returned by HERE (it changes as the dictionary expands).
There is also a scratchpad area above the dictionary (address returned by PAD) for temporarily storing data. The scratchpad area can be regarded as free memory.
The preferred mode of operation is to use the stack as much as possible instead of local variables or a heap.
1 p. 286 (about a particular edition of Forth, MMSFORTH) in chapter "FORTH's Memory, Dictionary, and Vocabularies", Forth: A text and a reference. Mahlon G. Kelly and Nicholas Spies. ISBN 0-13-326349-5 / 0-13-326331-2 (pbk.). 1986 by Prentice-Hall.

Answer 2

The fundamental question may not have been answered in a way that a new Forth user would require so I will take a run at it.
Memory in Forth can be very target dependent so I will limit the description to the simplest model, that being a flat memory space, where code and data live together happily. (as opposed to segmented memory models, or FLASH memory for code and RAM for data or other more complicated models)
The Dictionary typically starts at the bottom of memory and is allocated upwards by the Forth system. The two stacks, in a simple system would exist in high memory and typically have two CPU registers pointing to them. (Very system dependent)
At the most fundamental level, memory is allocated simply by changing the value of the dictionary pointer variable. (sometimes called DP)
The programmer does not typically access this variable directly but rather uses some higher level words to control it.
As mentioned the Forth word HERE returns the next available address in the dictionary space. What was not mentioned was that HERE is defined by fetching the value of the variable DP. (system dependency here but useful for a description)
In Forth HERE might look like this:
: HERE ( -- addr) DP # ;
That's it.
To allocate some memory we need to move HERE upwards and we do that with the word ALLOT.
The Forth definition for ALLOT simply takes a number from the parameter stack and adds it to the value in DP. So it is nothing more than:
: ALLOT ( n --) DP +! ; \ '+!' adds n to the contents variable DP
ALLOT is used by the FORTH system when we create a new definition so that what we created is safely inside 'ALLOTed' memory.
Something that is not immediately obvious is the that ALLOT can take a negative number so it is possible to move the dictionary pointer up or down. So you could allocate some memory and return it like this:
HEX 100 ALLOT
And free it up like this:
HEX -100 ALLOT
All this to say that this is the simplest form of memory management in a Forth system. An example of how this is used can be seen in the definition of the word BUFFER:
: BUFFER: ( n --) CREATE ALLOT ;
BUFFER: "creates" a new name in the dictionary (create uses allot to make space for the name by the way) then ALLOTs n bytes of memory right after the name and any associated housekeeping bytes your Forth system might use
So now to allocate a block of named memory we just type:
MARKER FOO \ mark where the memory ends right now
HEX 2000 BUFFER: IN_BUFFER
Now we have an 8K byte buffer called IN_BUFFER. If wanted to reclaim that space in Standard Forth we could type FOO and everything allocated in the Dictionary after FOO would be removed from the Forth system.
But if you want temporary memory space, EVERYTHING above HERE is free to use!
So you can simply point to an address and use it if you want to like this
: MYMEMORY here 200 + ; \ MYMEMORY points to un-allocated memory above HERE
\ MYMEMORY moves with HERE. be aware.
MYMEMORY HEX 1000 ERASE \ fill it with 2K bytes of zero
Forth has typically been used for high performance embedded applications where dynamic memory allocation can cause un-reliable code so static allocation using ALLOT was preferred. However bigger systems have a heap and use ALLOCATE, FREE and RESIZE much like we use malloc etc. in C.
BF

Answer 3

Peter Mortensen laid it out very well. I'll add a few notes that might help a C programmer some.
The stack is closest to what C terms "auto" variables, and what are commonly called local variables. You can give your stack values names in some forths, but most programmers try to write their code so that naming the values is unnecessary.
The dictionary can best be viewed as "static data" from a C programming perspective. You can reserve ranges of addresses in the dictionary, but in general you will use ALLOT and related words to create static data structures and pools which do not change size after allocation. If you want to implement a linked list that can grow in real time, you might ALLOT enough space for the link cells you will need, and write words to maintain a free list of cells you can draw from. There are naturally implementations of this sort of thing available, and writing your own is a good way to hone pointer management skills.
Heap allocation is available in many modern Forths, and the standard defines ALLOCATE, FREE and RESIZE words that work in a way analogous to malloc(), free(), and realloc() in C. Where the bytes are allocated from will vary from system to system. Check your documentation. It's generally a good idea to store the address in a variable or some other more permanent structure than the stack so that you don't inadvertently lose the pointer before you can free it.
As a side note, these words (along with the file i/o words) return a status on the stack that is non-zero if an error occurred. This convention fits nicely with the exception handling mechanism, and allows you to write code like:
variable PTR
1024 allocate throw PTR !
\ do some stuff with PTR
PTR # free throw
0 PTR !
Or for a more complex if somewhat artificial example of allocate/free:
\ A simple 2-cell linked list implementation using allocate and free
: >link ( a -- a ) ;
: >data ( a -- a ) cell + ;
: newcons ( a -- a ) \ make a cons cell that links to the input
2 cells allocate throw tuck >link ! ;
: linkcons ( a -- a ) \ make a cons cell that gets linked by the input
0 newcons dup rot >link ! ;
: makelist ( n -- a ) \ returns the head of a list of the numbers from 0..n
0 newcons dup >r
over 0 ?do
i over >data ! linkcons ( a -- a )
loop >data ! r> ;
: walklist ( a -- )
begin dup >data ? >link # dup 0= until drop ;
: freelist ( a -- )
begin dup >link # swap free throw dup 0= until drop ;
: unittest 10 makelist dup walklist freelist ;

Answer 4

Some Forth implementations support local variables on the return stack frame and allocating memory blocks. For example in SP-Forth:
lib/ext/locals.f
lib/ext/uppercase.f
100 CONSTANT /buf
: test ( c-addr u -- ) { \ len [ /buf 1 CHARS + ] buf }
buf SWAP /buf UMIN DUP TO len CMOVE
buf len UPPERCASE
0 buf len + C! \ just for illustration
buf len TYPE
;
S" abc" test \ --> "ABC"

Answer 5

With Forth you enter a different world.
In a typical Forth like ciforth on linux (and assuming 64 bits) you can configure your Forth to have a linear memory space that is as large as your swap space (e.g. 128 Gbyte). That is yours to fill in with arrays, linked lists, pictures whatever. You do this interactively, typically by declaring variable and including files. There are no restrictions. Forth only provides you with a HERE pointer to help you keep track of memory you have used up. Even that you can ignore, and there is even a word in the 1994 standard that provides scratch space that floats in the free memory (PAD).
Is there something like malloc() free() ? Not necessarily. In a small kernel of a couple of dozen kilobytes,no. But you can just include a file with an ALLOCATE / FREE and set aside a couple of Gbyte to use for dynamic memory.
As an example I'm currently working with tiff files. A typical 140 Mbyte picture takes a small chunk out of the dictionary advancing HERE.
Rows of pixels are transformed, decompressed etc. For that I use dynamic memory, so I ALLOCATE space for the decompression result of a row. I've to manually FREE them again when the results have been used up for another transformation. It feels totally different from c. There is more control and more danger.
Your question about scopes etc. In Forth if you know the address, you can access the data structure. Even if you jotted F7FFA1003 on a piece of paper. Trying to make programs safer by separate name spaces is not prominent in Forth style. So called wordlist (see also VOCABULARY) provide facilities in that direction.

Answer 6

There's a little elephant hiding in a big FORTH memory management room, and I haven't seen too many people mention it.
The canonical FORTH has, at the very least, a non-addressable parameter stack. This is the case in all FORTH hardware implementations I'm aware of (usually originating with Chuck Moore) that have a hardware parameter stack: it's not mapped into the addressable memory space.
What does "non-addressable" mean? It means: you can't have pointers to the parameter stack, i.e. there are no means to get addresses of things on that stack. The stack is a "black box" that you can only access via the stack API (opcodes if it's a hardware stack), without bypassing it - and only that API will modify its contents.
This implies no aliasing between parameter stack and memory accesses using pointers - via # and ! and the like. This enables efficient code generation with small effort, and indeed it makes decent generated code in FORTH systems orders of magnitude easier to obtain than with C and C++.
This of course breaks down when pointers can be obtained to the parameter stack. A well designed system would probably have guarded API for such access, since within the guards the code generator has to spill everything from registers to stack - in absence of full data flow analysis, that is.
DFA and other "expensive" optimization techniques are not of course impossible in FORTH, it's just that they are a bit larger in scope than many a practical FORTH system. They can be done very cleanly in spite of that (I'm using CFA, DFA and SSA optimizations in an in-house FORTH implementation, and the whole thing has less source code, comments included, than the utility classes in LLVM... - classes that are used all over the place, but that don't actually do anything related to compiling or code analysis).
A practical FORTH system can also place aliasing limitations on the return stack contents, namely that the return addresses themselves don't alias. That way control flow can be analyzed optimistically, only taking into account explicit stack accesses via R#, >R and R>, while letting you place addressable local variables on that stack - that's typically done when a variable is larger than a cell or two, or would be awkward to keep around on the parameter stack.
In C and C++, aliasing between automatic "local" variables and pointers is a big problem, because only large compilers with big optimizers can afford to prove lack of aliasing and forgo register reloads/spills when intervening pointer dereferences take place. Small compilers, to remain compliant and not generate broken code, have to pessimize and assume that accesses via char* alias everything, and accesses via Type* alias that type and others "like it" (e.g. derived types in C++). That char* aliases all things in C is a prime example of where you pay a big price for a feature you didn't usually intend to use.
Usually, forcing an unsigned char type for characters, and re-writing the string API using this type, lets you not use char* all over the place and lets the compiler generate much better code. Compilers of course add lots of analysis passes to minimize the fallout from this design fiasco... And all it'd take to fix in C is having a byte type that aliases every other type, and is compatible with arbitrary pointers, and has the size of the smallest addressable unit of memory. The reuse of void in void* to mean "pointer to anything" was, in hindsight, a mistake, since returning void means returning nothing, whereas pointing to void absolutely does not mean "pointing to nothing".

Answer 7

My idea is published at https://sites.google.com/a/wisc.edu/memorymanagement
I'm hoping to put forth code on github soon.
If you have an array (or several) with each array having a certain number of items of a certain size, you can pair a single-purpose stack to each array. The stack is initialized with the address of each array item. To allocate an array item, pop an address off the stack. To deallocate an array item, push its address onto the stack.