Version 1.2 of ai12s/ai12-0064-2.txt

Unformatted version of ai12s/ai12-0064-2.txt version 1.2
Other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0064-2.txt

!standard 9.5.1(11)          16-06-02 AI12-0064-2/02
!standard 9.5.1(18)
!class Amendment 15-10-17
!status work item 15-12-18
!status received 15-10-17
!priority Medium
!difficulty Medium
!subject Nonblocking subprograms
Aspect and attribute Nonblocking are added.
During a protected action, it is a bounded error to invoke an operation that is potentially blocking. There is currently no mechanism (other than a comment) to specify that a given subprogram is intended to be safely callable during a protected action (i.e., that the subprogram will not invoke an operation that is potentially blocking). This seems like a useful part of a subprogram's "contract" that should be (optionally) specifiable at the point of a subprogram's declaration.
Modify 3.10.2(33/3):
... The accessibility level of P shall not be statically deeper than that of S. {If S is nonblocking, P shall be nonblocking. }In addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3), {these rules apply}[this rule applies] also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.
Add after 4.6(24.21/4): [Type conversion Legality Rules for access-to-subprogram types]
* If the target type is nonblocking, the operand type shall be nonblocking.
[Editor's note: This was moved from Tucker's explicit wording; we're not scattering conversion rules all over the Standard.]
Add after 4.9(8):
* an attribute_reference whose designator is Nonblocking;
Modify 9.5.1(11):
* an entry_call_statement{, or a call on a procedure that renames or is implemented by an entry};
Add after 9.5.1(18):
For a program unit other than a protected operation, for a formal package, formal subprogram, formal object of an anonymous access-to-subprogram type, and for a named access-to-subprogram type (including a formal type), the following language-defined representation aspect may be specified:
The type of aspect Nonblocking is Boolean. When aspect Nonblocking is False for a program unit, the entity might contain a potentially blocking operation. If the aspect is True for a program unit, the program unit is said to be nonblocking. If directly specified, the aspect_definition shall be a static expression. This aspect is inherited by overridings of dispatching subprograms.
AARM Ramification: specifying Nonblocking is False imposes no requirements. Specifying Nonblocking is True imposes additional compile-time checks to prevent blocking, but does not prevent deadlock. pragma Detect_Blocking can be used to ensure that Program_Error is raised in a deadlock situation.
For a generic instantiation, the aspect is determined by the setting for the generic unit[Redundant, re-evaluated based on the actual parameters.] If the aspect is directly specified for an instance, the value shall be confirming.
AARM Ramification: The value for the generic unit might be different than that for the instance if it involves one or more Nonblocking attribute references.
[Editor's note: I'm presuming that all of the contents of the instance are re-evaluated by the rules of 12.3. I didn't go look that up, so we might need a special rule to force that; but it would be the expected "macro" behavior.]
For any other program unit, formal package, formal subprogram, formal object, or (formal) access-to-subprogram type, the aspect is determined by the setting for the innermost program unit enclosing the entity.
If not specified for a library unit, the default is True if the library unit is declared pure and is not a generic unit, and False otherwise.
A nonblocking program unit shall not contain, other than within nested units with Nonblocking specified as False, a call on a callable entity for which the Nonblocking aspect is False, nor shall it contain any of the following:
* a select_statement;
* an accept_statement;
* entry_call_statement or a call on a procedure that renames an entry;
* a call on a primitive procedure of a synchronized tagged type that does not have Synchronization aspect of By_Protected_Procedure;
[Editor's note: The above rewording is from the ARG meeting #54 minutes. But can't a primitive procedure of a limited interface type be implemented by an entry??? Nothing in the Legality Rules of 3.9.4 prevent it, and the example in 3.9.4 shows that it would be possible indirectly at a minimum. Consider that Append could be implemented by an entry for the synchronized interface in that example. Thus this rule needs to include limited interfaces (which, unfortunately, would effectively prevent them from being used in nonblocking contexts - unless we extended the aspect to interfaces, in which case we'd need some additional matching rules).]
* a delay_statement;
* an abort_statement;
* task creation or activation.
AARM Ramification: Implicit calls for finalization, storage pools, and the like are covered by the above prohibition. The rules above say "a call", not "an explicit call".
[Editor's note: The above note was added to address Steve's concern about implicit calls.]
A subprogram shall be nonblocking if it overrides a nonblocking dispatching operation. An entry shall not implement a nonblocking procedure. In an Access attribute_reference for a nonblocking access-to-subprogram type, the subprogram denoted by the prefix shall be nonblocking.
AARM Discussion: Rules elsewhere in the standard (4.6 and 3.10.2) ensure that access-to-subprogram conversion and the Access attribute enforce nonblocking.
[Editor's note: I moved those rules, leaving this note for the language-lawyer reader.]
In a generic instantiation:
* the actual subprogram corresponding to a nonblocking formal subprogram shall be nonblocking (an actual that is an entry is not permitted in this case);
* the actual type corresponding to a nonblocking formal access-to-subprogram type shall be nonblocking;
* the actual object corresponding to a formal object of a nonblocking access-to-subprogram type shall be of a nonblocking access-to-subprogram type;
* the actual instance corresponding to a nonblocking formal package shall be nonblocking.
In addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3), the above rules apply also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.
AARM Ramification: For a generic formal parameter to be nonblocking (thus, for these rules to apply), either it or some enclosing unit has to explicitly specify aspect Nonblocking to be True. In particular, these rules do not apply when it or some enclosing unit specifies aspect Nonblocking to be an expression involving attribute Nonblocking of a generic formal parameter (see below).
For a prefix S that denotes a subprogram (including a formal subprogram):
Denotes whether subprogram S is considered nonblocking; the value of this attribute is of type Boolean, Redundant[and is always static].
The prefix S shall statically denote a subprogram.
AARM Ramification: The evaluation of the prefix S will have no effect, which is necessary for S'Nonblocking to be static. For the intended use in aspect specifications, we don't want any evaluation, as it would happen at some freezing point.
If S denotes a formal subprogram, the value of S'Nonblocking is True. Otherwise, S'Nonblocking returns the value of the Nonblocking aspect of S.
AARM Reason: Inside a generic unit, we assume the worst about S'Nonblocking, so we enforce the nonblocking restrictions on entities that use it to define their own nonblocking aspect. The actual subprogram does not have to be nonblocking.
AARM To Be Honest: In an instance, S'Nonblocking returns the value of the nonblocking aspect of the actual subprogram, even if referenced through the name of the formal.
For a prefix S that denotes an access-to-subprogram subtype (including formal access-to-subprogram subtypes):
Denotes whether a subprogram designated by a value of type S is considered nonblocking; the value of this attribute is of type Boolean, Redundant[and is always static].
The prefix S shall statically denote a subtype. [Editor's note: is it possible for it not to? If not, we don't need this rule.]
Wording Locations TBD:
Language-defined operators other than "=" for record types are nonblocking; "=" for record types is potentially blocking.
AARM Reason: Record equality can be composed of operations including user-defined "=" operators, which might be potentially blocking. We can't introduce an incompatibility here, so we have to assume the worst.
[Editor's note: We might be able to do better here for untagged types, but sadly for tagged types we have to allow it to be potentially blocking as some overriding might need it (and all of the overridings need to be the same).]
The default implementations of stream-oriented attributes for elementary types are nonblocking. Other default implementations of stream-oriented attributes are potentially blocking.
AARM Reason: As with equality, composite stream-oriented attributes can be composed out of user-defined routines. Again, we have to assume the worst.
[Editor's note: We intend that language-defined subprograms are nonblocking unless this Standard says otherwise. Specifically, 9.5.1(18) says:
Certain language-defined subprograms are potentially blocking. In particular, the subprograms of the language-defined input-output packages that manipulate files (implicitly or explicitly) are potentially blocking. Other potentially blocking subprograms are identified where they are defined. When not specified as potentially blocking, a language-defined subprogram is nonblocking.
We'll accomplish that by adding "with Nonblocking => True" to all of the language-defined packages unless otherwise noted here.
We don't need to add that to units that are non-generic and declared pure, as those already default to True.
For generic units that have formal subprograms (like the Ada.Containers packages), the package would instead have "with Nonblocking => Formal1'Nonblocking and Formal2'Nonblocking and ...;". This automatically matches the nonblocking setting to that of the actual subprograms (see the !discussion for more on this).
The I/O packages are potentially blocking (Nonblocking => False), but we will mark the Put/Get routines that put into a string or get from a string as Nonblocking (see the first !example).
There are special cases where subprograms are specifically marked as
"with Nonblocking => False;"
* individual subprograms identified in the Standard as potentially blocking; * subprograms with anonymous-access-to-subprogram parameters (else we would
introduce a compatibility problem).
Writing the exact text for this can wait until the larger details are worked out. In the case of the containers, it may make more sense to include those contracts in the AI that defines preconditions for the container operations; it probably makes the most sense to add all of the contracts at once.
End lengthy editor's note.]
We considered changing the aspect name from "Nonblocking" to "Potentially_Blocking," as that matches RM terminology better, but we ultimately concluded that would be a mistake. Furthermore, "nonblocking" is used in 9.5.1, albeit somewhat informally. Were we to switch to Potentially_Blocking, the default would be True rather than False, which is unlike other Boolean aspects. Furthermore, with Potentially_Blocking => True, we wouldn't require that it be potentially blocking, merely allow it. Perhaps Allow_Blocking would be better, but that doesn't match RM terminology at all, and still has the "wrong" default.
We initially modeled this aspect after No_Return, which has a somewhat similar purpose and presumably has already worked out some of the needed rules. However, we have gone beyond that, because we now have nonblocking access-to-subprogram types, nonblocking formal subprograms, etc.
The rules do not allow calling "normal" subprograms from a nonblocking subprogram. This allows detecting any potentially blocking operations used in a nonblocking subprogram statically. This is important if pragma Detect_Blocking is used, as such detection is required. (Otherwise, this is just a bounded error and the "mistake" can be ignored with the usual consequences.)
We have provided package-level defaults, given that many packages will have all of their subprograms non-blocking. We chose to make the default for a declared pure, non-generic library unit to be nonblocking, as that is almost always the case, since blocking typically implies the use of some kind of global lock. We do not foresee significant incompatibilities, since declared pure library units may only depend on other declared pure library units. For pure generic units we leave the default at False for compatibility reasons, because these might have existing instances where an actual subprogram (or access-to-subprogram type) is potentially blocking.
We did not specify that protected subprograms are by default Nonblocking=>True, since that would be incompatible, as they then could not call subprograms with a default Nonblocking aspect value of False. It might be possible to specify Nonblocking=>True as the default for protected subprograms in a future version of the standard (and clearly an implementation could at least provide a warning when a call is made to a subprogram with Nonblocking of False). Because of the confusion related to the fact that protected operations are always required to be nonblocking at run-time, we don't allow specifying the attribute directly on an individual protected operation. However, we allow specifying Nonblocking on a protected unit to determine the setting for all of the enclosed protected operations.
We only allow specifying a confirming value of Nonblocking on a generic instantiation; the value of the aspect comes from the generic unit (possibly after re-evaluating the aspect based on the values of the actual parameters). Specifying a different value would simply be confusing, as it wouldn't change the enforcement of Legality Rules in the generic unit (and it would be wrong to supply a value of True for an instance of a unit that have the value of False, as in that case no rules would have been enforced in the body).
The attribute Nonblocking is primarily useful for use in the Nonblocking aspect of other subprograms, and mainly for the non-blocking property of formal subprograms.
We allow the prefix to be any subprogram to avoid having special cases, and as it may be useful to ensure that a group of subprograms all have the same contract. In the case of nonblocking, that could be accomplished with a constant, but in the case of other static contracts that we are considering like exception contracts (AI12-0015-1) and global contracts (AI12-0079-1), a mechanism to copy them will be valuable (especially as they may be lengthy). As we want all of the contracts to work as similarly as possible, we make the attribute Nonblocking as general as possible.
The primary use for this attribute is in aspects of generic units. The attribute makes it possible for a generic unit to have a nonblocking aspect that depends on those of the actual subprograms. That's especially important for the containers, which we want to be primarily nonblocking.
This mechanism takes some effort for the implementer of a generic unit, but it means that the instantiator of such a unit does not need to worry about nonblocking, as the most restrictive setting compatable with the actual subprograms will automatically be chosen.
Unfortunately, this mechanism doesn't have an obvious extension to support anonymous access-to-subprogram parameters; the type is anonymous and the actual is typically an Access attribute. One could imagine allowing the prefix to be a parameter, something like:
procedure Iterate
(Container : in Hashed_Maps;
Process : not null access procedure (Position : in Cursor)
when Nonblocking => Process'Nonblocking and
Hash'Nonblocking and Equivalent_Keys'Nonblocking);
But in that case the Nonblocking value would have to be determined based on the actuals of the call; it would be weird for the Legality of a call to depend on the details of actual parameters. Thus we didn't propose such a mechanism.
We could simplify this proposal further by dropping the ability to specify Nonblocking on generic formal parameters, and just depending on the Nonblocking attribute to handle that. That would eliminate the rules about generic formal matching. We didn't do that as that would require having nonblocking attributes for formal packages and formal objects (which would reduce the value somewhat), and would eliminate the "easy" solution for new code (which is to simply require everything to be nonblocking). Not everyone needs to write the most flexible possible generics.
Comparing Alternative 1 with this proposal.
The problem with alternative 1 is that a generic unit like the containers can be set to nonblocking, but then using this with a not nonblocking routine requires an explicit override by the user on the instance. Since the default for most routines is that they are not nonblocking, this could provide a significant compatibility problem.
An alternative for alternative 1 would be to declare units like the containers to be blocking; but then they can never be nonblocking (and we surely want to use them as nonblocking).
In contrast, this proposal puts all of the burden on the implementer of a package (where it should be) and none on the user of the package. Alternative 1 is definitely easier for the implementer of a package, and harder for a user.
Container usage examples:
Imagine that a user has an existing user-defined Hash function:
subtype Label is String (1..10); function Hash (Key : in Label) return Ada.Containers.Hash_Type;
With this proposal (as outlined in the example section below), if they don't care about nonblocking (as is likely to be the case for recompiling existing code), their existing instantation will compile with no problem:
package My_Hashed_Map is new Ada.Containers.Hashed_Map (Label, Element, Hash, "=");
If they do care about blocking behavior, they can add Nonblocking to Hash and they will get the Nonblocking behavior they want:
function Hash (Key : in Label) return Ada.Containers.Hash_Type with Nonblocking => True;
Alternatively, they could declare the instance to be Nonblocking:
package My_Hashed_Map is new Ada.Containers.Hashed_Map (Label, Element, Hash, "=") with Nonblocking => True;
which would cause an error (as Nonblocking is False), hopefully with an error message that Hash has Nonblocking set as False (since that's the default). With a good error message, the correct fix should be easy to find.
For alternative 1 (as described in AI12-0064-1/05), the situation is different.
The original instantation of:
package My_Hashed_Map is new Ada.Containers.Hashed_Map (Label, Element, Hash, "=");
is now illegal, as Hash has Nonblocking = False, and that fails to match the default for the formal parameter Hash (which is Nonblocking => True). Thus the user has to change their code and add Nonblocking => True to Hash or add Nonblocking => False to the instance My_Hashed_Map.
That doesn't seem good.
If the default of Ada.Containers.Hashed_Map is changed to False, then the above works, but there no longer is any way to get a Nonblocking container.
package My_Hashed_Map is new Ada.Containers.Hashed_Map (Label, Element, Hash, "=") with Nonblocking => True;
should be illegal in this case, as the restrictions were not enforced in the generic body.
There is one known problem with this proposal as it is written. The prefix of the Nonblocking attribute has to resolve without any context. That means that in many circumstances, overloaded prefixes aren't going to be usable. That could be a problem for operators (like "=" in the containers) that are widely used.
I considered using subprogram calls rather than subprogram names in the prefix, but that ran into issues both with having appropriate parameters to use (in the generic case) and with evaluation of the prefix (which we don't want to do).
I also considered using qualification, but that doesn't help for relational operators (they all return Boolean!).
It's possible to rename operators to unique names, so the problem isn't unsurmountable, but of course that clutters the name space of packages. (We can use renames as aspects aren't resolved until the freezing point.)
One of course can avoid using operators in generic specifications, but that's impractical for existing generics and a usage pain for new generics.
package Ada.Text_IO with Nonblocking => False is ... generic type Enum is (<>); package Enumeration_IO is -- implicitly Nonblocking => False
Default_Width : Field := 0; Default_Setting : Type_Set := Upper_Case;
procedure Get(File : in File_Type; -- implicitly Nonblocking => False ...
procedure Get(From : in String; Item : out Enum; Last : out Positive) with Nonblocking => True; -- explicitly Nonblocking => True
procedure Put(To : out String; Item : in Enum; Set : in Type_Set := Default_Setting) with Nonblocking => True; -- explicitly Nonblocking => True
end Enumeration_IO ... end Ada.Text_IO;
with Ada.Iterator_Interfaces; generic type Key_Type is private; type Element_Type is private; with function Hash (Key : Key_Type) return Hash_Type; with function Equivalent_Keys (Left, Right : Key_Type) return Boolean; with function "=" (Left, Right : Element_Type) return Boolean is <>; package Ada.Containers.Hashed_Maps is with Nonblocking => Hash'Nonblocking and Equivalent_Keys'Nonblocking and Element_Equal'Nonblocking; pragma Preelaborate(Hashed_Maps); pragma Remote_Types(Hashed_Maps);
function Element_Equal (Left, Right : Element_Type) return Boolean renames "="; -- Rename of formal "=". ...
procedure Iterate (Container : in Map; Process : not null access procedure (Position : in Cursor)) with Nonblocking => False; ...
end Ada.Containers.Hashed_Maps;
Alternatively, we could separately specify the blocking for the individual routines, depending on which of the formal routines they are allowed to use. (Given that we leave that unspecified in the Standard, it's probably better to use a global setting as was done here.)
!ACATS test
ACATS B-Tests and C-Tests.


Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent