!standard H.3.1 (8) 00-11-13 AI95-00209/02 !class binding interpretation 99-02-05 !status work item 99-02-05 !status received 98-10-01 !priority Medium !difficulty Easy !subject pragma Reviewable; can objects become uninitialized? !summary In H.3.1(8), the term "reference (to)" needs to be replaced by "usage (of the value of)". H.3.2(9) needs to be similarly changed. For the purposes of Pragma Reviewable, objects are uninitialized, if they never were initialized or assigned to prior to use. All such objects must be identified by an implementation in conformance with H.3.1(8). An implementation may identify additional objects as uninitialized, if the value of an uninitialized object is assigned to them. An implementation may, but need not, take advantage of aliasing analysis or knowledge of non-executable program paths in determining whether or not an object is initialized. !question When pragma Reviewable is being used, can objects become uninitialized? Consider the following example: declare A : Integer := 42; B : Integer; C : Integer; begin A := C; -- C is uninitialized B := A; -- Is A initialized??? end; The error in the program above is clearly the first statement. Will it be correct to state at the usage of C, that C is "possibly uninitialized" and at the subsequent usage of A, that A is "known to be initialized" (initialized once, always initialized)? !recommendation (see summary) !wording H.3.1(8) should read: "For each usage of the value of a scalar object, an identification of the usage as either ....." The 2. sentence of H.3.2(9) should read: "Thus an inspection point has the effect of an implicit usage of the value of each of its inspectable objects." !discussion First, the term "reference" in H.3.1(8) is incorrect as it also includes the occurrence as the target of an assignment. Clearly, only usages of the value of the object were meant to be diagnosed. Similarly, the NOTE H.3.2(9) in imprecise by its usage of the term "reference". A definitive answer to the !question seems counter-productive. A model that allows for a "deinitialization" caused by assigning the value of an uninitialized object may, at times, be beneficial to a programmer interested in knowing why an operation in the program causes a value failure of the software. This benefit cannot be obtained, if we restrict the model to a "once assigned, always initialized" model. On the other hand, the deinitialization model will be a significant nuisance during an overall examination of a program in search of any use of truly uninitialized objects. Here, the "once assigned, always initialized" model is preferable, since, after correction of any original uninitialized usages, the consequential "deinitializations" will have automatically disappeared. The main disadvantage arises, when an object remains "possibly uninitialized" only because the compiler is unable to prove the falsehood of the path predicate, under which the object would be uninitialized. A user (or verification system) will then have to examine the code to establish that on all executable paths to the usage point the object is indeed initialized. Once this is established, clearly no other variable can be deinitialized by being assigned the object's value. However, if the compiler diagnostics assume transitive infection, then these other variables will (continue to) be diagnosed as uninitialized, misleading the user. Consider: if P then X := 7; end if; ... if Q then Y := X; else Y := 6; end if; A := Y; B:= A + 1; Assume further that Q implies P. Of course, Y is then well defined under all circumstances. However, the transitive infection model would make Y, and consequently A and B, uninitialized variables, since X is "potentially uninitialized" at this point. The fact that X is initialized depends on the branch predicates involved and is, in general, undecidable. Surely users will not want to laboriously determine that Y and whatever it transitively affects, i.e., the variables A and B, are diagnosed as "uninitialized" only because of such situations. The non-transitive model will correctly identify the usage of X as "potentially uninitialized" and thus identify the cause of a potential error, but leave Y, A, and B undiagnosed, since the problem is clearly not at the point of their usages. Given the two presented usage scenarios of the diagnostics, we do not want to favor one analysis model over the other. Rather, it is best left to the negotiations between vendors supporting this annex and their users, which of the models should be followed by the implementation. An object may be initialized through an aliasing effect. As aliasing analysis is rather difficult and, in general, undecidable, albeit not for scalar objects, Pragma Reviewable should not require the compiler to perform such an analysis. In summary, the diagnostics of uninitialized objects must be conservatively correct, that is, all uninitialized objects will be recognized, but some objects initialized only by alias-effects or uninitialized only on non-executable paths, or assigned the value of an uninitialized object may also be diagnosed as uninitialized. !appendix !topic pragma Reviewable; "known to be inititialized" !reference AARM95-H.3.1(8);6.0 !from Sven Soerensen 98-07-03 <> !discussion AARM95-H.3.1(8): For each reference to a scalar object, an identification of the reference as either ``known to be initialized,'' or ``possibly uninitialized,'' independent of whether pragma Normalize_Scalars applies; My question is: Can scalar objects _become_ unitialized? Consider the following example: declare A : Integer := 42; B : Integer; C : Integer; begin A := C; -- C is unititialized B := A; -- Is A initialized??? end; The error in the program above is clearly the first statement. Will it be correct to state at the reference to C, that C is "possibly unititialized" and at the reference to A, that A is "known to be initialized" (initialized once, always initialized)? If scalar objects can become unititialized it is, as far as I can see, necessary to make a global analysis in order to claim that that an object is "known to be initialized". -- Sven **************************************************** From: Jean-Pierre Rosen Sent: Sunday, February 07, 1999 8:57 AM >For the purposes of Pragma Reviewable, objects are uninitialized, if >they never were initialized or assigned to prior to use. Objects >cannot become uninitialized by assigning the value of an uninitialized >object to them. I find this wording misleading, because of course objects DO become unitialized in that case, although (proposed wording) "implementations are not required to mark as uninitialized objects that become uninitialized due to assignment of another uninitialized object". **************************************************** From: Erhard Ploedereder Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 5:33 AM > If find this wording misleading, because of course objects DO become > unitialized in that case, although (proposed wording) ... If one takes that view, how would you want to treat A := C + 0; with C uninitialized ? **************************************************** From: Robert A Duff Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 8:20 AM I agree with J-P. Or perhaps add "uses of" before "uninitialized objects". Erhard writes: > If one takes that view, how would you want to treat > A := C + 0; > with C uninitialized ? Pragma Reviewable should complain about the reference to C. The point of the AI is that having complained once about an uninitialized variable, we shouldn't require that further uses of that same junk value get error messages. I just don't like the *wording* of the AI, because it seems to imply that in: > A := C; -- C is uninitialized > B := A; -- Is A initialized??? [Yes.] that the value of B is somehow OK -- it's not; the value of B is possibly junk (assuming we actually got that far, because the bounded error wasn't caught). I agree with the conclusion of the AI, that only one message is needed for the above example. For that matter, I would go further, and say that only one message is needed for this: X := C; -- C is uninitialized Y := C; -- It still is An implementation should be allowed, but not required, to give an error message on the second use of C. By the way, note that this section of the RM is written in a rather informal way. It uses the term "uninitialized", which is never precisely defined. H.3.1(8.a) makes it clear that the intent is to allow a great deal of freedom to the compiler -- the difference between "known to be initialized" and "possibly uninitialized" is not nailed down -- it depends on how smart the compiler is. And other requirements for pragma Reviewable are also written in this same informal manner. That's fine; let's not start inventing new (more precise) requirements that were never intended to be there. In general, when compiler writers ask questions about this (and some other) features of the S & S annex, I think the ARG should normally answer something like, "Go ask your users who want these features". - Bob **************************************************** From: Brian Wichmann Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 8:41 AM Bob's got it right. pragma Reviewable is to aid those who have to check the object code produced by the compiler because the consequences of a undetected compiler bug are unacceptable. It has to be informal, since it is unreasonable to tie down the analysis that the compiler performs (which is likely to depend upon optimization). Brian. **************************************************** From: Robert Dewar Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 9:17 AM Requirements that are not formalizable are junk and should not be in the RM, or if they are there, can be ignored. Such requirements should at best appear as implementation advice. I am afraid there is quite a bit of this kind of junk in annex H! **************************************************** From: Robert A Duff Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 10:50 AM Perhaps, but we shouldn't try to change it now! If the ARG tries to formalize all of Annex H, it will waste a lot of time, and cause a lot of trouble for implementers. Better to let these things be worked out between vendors and their customers (those customers who care about safety, I mean). - Bob **************************************************** From: Robert Dewar Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 10:54 AM No leave it as it is, and spend ZERO time trying to figure out what it means if anything. The ARG has better things to do. Let the HRG spend its time on this :-) **************************************************** From: Robert A Duff Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 10:57 AM In reference to H.3.1(8), Robert says: > Yes, but that's a meaningless requirement, the compiler can simply say > "all references to scalars are "possibly uninitialized" > and that meets the (silly) requirement. Sure, and the AARM annotation points out that a "lazy" compiler could do just that. On the other hand, a compiler can't say "all references are known to be initialized". Please remember why we're talking about the issue -- some compiler vendor asked what they are supposed to do in certain specific cases. I believe I advocated some time ago that the ARG tell the compiler vendor "we don't know -- go ask your customers". But the ARG wanted to answer the question. Fine. But please don't take this as an invitation to rewrite the whole annex! - Bob **************************************************** From: Robert I. Eachus Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 11:17 AM I totally agree. For example, an implementation might print out a (set of) warning messages like: foo.adb:23:14 Warning: Bar may be referenced before it is intialized. to the standard error output, rather than interspersed in the source listing. Is this non-conforming? Of course not! There is no requirement for a source listing with pragma Reviewable. For example in ada-mode, I would much prefer this approach. Should a compiler be dinged for providing only one such message for each such variable instead of six hundred and three? **************************************************** From: Jean-Pierre Rosen Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 1:12 PM >> If find this wording misleading, because of course objects DO become >> unitialized in that case, although (proposed wording) ... > >If one takes that view, how would you want to treat > A := C + 0; >with C uninitialized ? Right, I should have said "initialized with an uninitialized *expression* (not variable). Well, maybe there is no such thing as an uninitialized expression... The point is to acknowledge that the compiler must identify variables that are not assigned a value, not variables that are uninitialized for more complex reasons. ****************************************************