Although your post is a bit trollish, I answer below to clear any confusion.


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:18 AM,  <o...@okmij.org> wrote:
>
> ivan.chollet wrote:
>> let's consider the following:
>>
>> let fd = Unix.open ...
>> let fd = Unix.open ...
>>
>> At this point one file descriptor cannot be closed. Static analysis will
>> have trouble catching these bugs, so do humans.
>
> Both sentences express false propositions.

Nope, they both express true propositions, as shown below.

>
> The given code, if Haskell, does not open any file descriptors, so
> there is nothing to close.

I gave the code in caml syntax since your original post was about caml.


>In the following OCaml code
>
>         let fd = open_in "/tmp/a" in
>         let fd = open_in "/tmp/v" in
>         ...
>
> the first open channel becomes unreachable. When GC collects it (which
> will happen fairly soon, on a minor collection, because the channel
> died young), GC will finalize the channel and close its file
> descriptor.

This is not the code I posted. I explicitly used "Unix.open", not
"open_in". This dishonest rewrite of my trivial code snippet is
trollish and ridiculous.
In your code, your "fd"s are not file descriptors, they are channels.
It's funny that you use a variable name "fd" for a channel, shows
confusion at the very least, since they are completely different
objects and concepts. I assume that for a file descriptor, you
invariably use a variable name "ch"?
In my code, the fd are not garbage collected, they are not subject to
garbage collection since they don't live in the runtime, they are
purely OS objects that need to be closed with an explicit Unix.close
system call.

As a result, your comment is completely wrong, the first file
descriptor in my code snippet gets invariably leaked as I said.

This proves the first sentence.

>
> The corresponding Haskell code
>         do
>         h <- openFile ...
>         h <- openFile ...
>
> works similarly to OCaml. Closing file handles upon GC is codified in
> the Haskell report because Lazy IO crucially depends on such behavior.
>
> If one is interested in statically tracking open file descriptors and
> making sure they are closed promptly, one could read large literature
> on this topic. Google search for monadic regions should be a good
> start. Some of the approaches are implemented and used in Haskell.
>
>
> Now about static analysis. Liveness analysis has no problem whatsoever
> determining that a variable fd in our examples has been shadowed and
> the corresponding value is dead. We are all familiar with liveness
> analysis -- it's the one responsible for `unused variable'
> warnings. The analysis is useful for many other things (e.g., if it
> determines that a created value dies within the function activation,
> the value could be allocated on stack rather than on heap.). Here is
> example from C:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> void foo(void) {
>   char x[4]  = "abc"; /* Intentional copying! */
>   {
>   char x[4]  = "cde"; /* Intentional copying and shadowing */
>   x[0] = 'x';
>   printf("result %s\n",x);
>   }
> }
>
> Pretty old GCC (4.2.1) had no trouble detecting the shadowing. With
> the optimization flag -O4, GCC acted on this knowledge. The generated
> assembly code reveals no traces of the string "abc", not even in the
> .rodata section of the code. The compiler determined the string is
> really unused and did not bother even compiling it in.
>

Detecting shadowing is trivial as I said in a previous post and is not
the problem here. The compiler can always throw a warning about the
shadowing, but not much else.

There is no algorithm that can tell you (by static analysis or not by
the way) whether a program is leaking file descriptors or not. This is
a corollary of Rice's theorem.
For example if you put your file descriptors in a list, then shadow
some of them, static analysis will be of no help to tell you if your
program is leaking file descriptors or not.

This proves the second sentence.


>
>> Disallowing variable shadowing prevents this.
>> The two "fd" occur in different contexts and should have different names.
>> Usage of shadowing is generally bad practice. It is error-prone. Hides
>> obnoxious bugs like file descriptors leaks.
>> The correct way is to give different variables that appear in different
>> contexts a different name, although this is arguably less convenient and
>> more verbose.
>
> CS would be better as science if we refrain from passing our
> personal opinions and prejudices as ``the correct way''.
>

CS would be better as a science if we refrained from using flawed
logic and trollish behaviors, as you did in your quoted post.


> I can't say better than the user Kranar in a recent discussion on a
> similar `hot topic':
>
>     The issue is that much of what we do as developers is simply based on
>     anecdotal evidence, or statements made by so called "evangelicals" who
>     blog about best practices and people believe them because of how
>     articulate they are or the cache and prestige that the person carries.
>     ...
>     It's unfortunate that computer science is still advancing the same way
>     medicine advanced with witch doctors, by simply trusting the wisest
>     and oldest of the witch doctors without any actual empirical data,
>     without any evidence, just based on the reputation and overall
>     charisma or influence of certain bloggers or "big names" in the field.
>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1iyp6v/is_there_a_really_an_empirical_difference_between/cb9mf6f
>

At this point and given the context of this post: don't feed the troll


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Reply via email to