Karl, interesting point... perhaps a similar scheme could work for value
types (using the COW refcount)?
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 at 16:02 Karl Wagner <razie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's great! I suppose the idea of allocating a bit of extra storage for
> similar data in value types is some sort of heresy?
> Would there be a conceptual reason for that; which explains why it's okay
> for reference-types but not for values? Personally I feel like it's a kind
> of C legacy, due to performance and layout expectations that C sets about
> value-types ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Sent from my iPad
> On 12 Oct 2016, at 07:54, Greg Parker <gpar...@apple.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Jay Abbott via swift-evolution <
> email@example.com> wrote:
> Implementation idea No. 4:
> The basic concept is that the dynamic linker would fixup the offsets as
> well as relocating the addersses, allowing the size of objects (and maybe
> structs?) to change at link-time. The process might be something like this:
> * References to members defined in extensions would compile to have an
> offset symbol instead of a value - so they can be fixed up later
> * The linker would scan all the shared objects that are referenced (and
> thus might get linked)
> * Build up a list of Stored Properties In ExtensionS (SPIES, muhahaha) for
> each class.
> * Append the extra fields (increase the size the class), decide where each
> member goes in the extended layout and fixup the offsets
> * Carry on with normal relocation
> There are quite a few assumptions in the above, and probably quite a few
> misunderstandings about how things work on my part too (I'm not an expert
> at this), however I think it should work in principle. Some questions about
> my assumptions: Can linker know in advance all the potential modules that
> could be linked, or is this done more lazily and it only knows about what
> it's linking right now? Is it ok for the size to change - I don't know if
> it's a static sizeof() or if it could be (or already is) stored in the isa?
> This sort of scheme isn't dynamic enough. The worst-case is a extension in
> a library that gets dlopen()ed at runtime on a class that is already
> loaded. The build-time linker can't know anything about it. The loader and
> the runtime will see it, but at that point the class may already be in use
> and may already have instances allocated. If you want to handle the
> dlopen() case then you need some way to add storage to arbitrary objects
> that have already been allocated.
> Ole Begemann wrote:
> For what it's worth, Greg Parker (Cc'ed) started a discussion back in
> March that I think is relevant here:
> Here's the relevant part:
> "I am considering a new representation for Swift refcounts and other
> per-object data. This is an outline of the scheme. Comments and suggestions
> Today, each object stores 64-bits of refcounts and flags after the isa
> In this new system, each object would store a pointer-size field after the
> isa field. This field would have two cases: it could store refcounts and
> flags, or it could store a pointer to a side allocation that would store
> refcounts and flags and additional per-object data.
> * Allows inexpensive per-object storage for future features like
> associated references or class extensions with instance variables.
> I don't know the current status of this idea (implemented? planned?
> abandoned?). Also, it's worth noting that this would only apply to classes,
> not value types.
> I'm working on this right now:
> If it goes well it will provide the runtime implementation space needed
> for associated objects or stored properties in extensions. Such storage
> would be less efficient than "real" stored properties. Any object with that
> storage attached would also suffer additional performance penalties to
> refcounting and deallocation. On the plus side there is no memory penalty
> to objects that don't have additional storage, and there is no contention
> over a big global association table like there is in Objective-C's
> associated object implementation.
> Note that the runtime implementation is not the only problem. The
> optimizer folks hate the fact that stored properties in extensions defeat
> the compiler's visibility into the deinit behavior of all types, even if
> most types are unaffected at runtime.
> Greg Parker gpar...@apple.com Runtime Wrangler
swift-evolution mailing list