> On Jul 9, 2017, at 6:14 PM, Jens Persson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for that clarification John McCall. > My code is using a lot of generic structs (in which memory layout is > important) though, an example would be: > struct Vector4<E> : Vector { > typealias Index = VectorIndex4 > typealias Element = E > var e0, e1, e2, e3: Element > … > } > And I guess I'm out of luck trying to represent those as C structs? > So AFAICS it looks like it is currently impossible to write generic low level > code in Swift, unless I just keep doing what I've been doing (It does > currently work after all) knowing that it will probably break in some future > versions of Swift. But in that possible future version of Swift, I could > probably find a way to make it work again (using some possible explicit tools > for layout control present in that version of Swift). > Correct?
Correct. John. > /Jens > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 11:41 PM, John McCall <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> On Jul 9, 2017, at 4:49 PM, Jens Persson via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Sorry for making so much off topic noise in this thread, but I made a >> mistake regarding the Metal tutorial: >> Looking more carefully I see now that they rebuild a vertedData: [Float] >> from their vertices: [Vertex] using the floatBuffer() method of the Vertex >> struct, which returns an Array with the stored properties of Vertex in >> correct order. >> >> While searching the internet about this I saw Joe Groff mentioning on >> Twitter that: >> "We plan to sort fields in padding order to minimize size, and may also >> automatically pack bools and enums in bitfields." >> >> So AFAICS my current image processing code is making the possibly invalid >> assumption that eg >> struct S { >> var a, b, c, d: Float >> } >> will have a memory layout of 4*4=16 bytes (stride and size == 16) and an >> alignment of 4, and most importantly that a, b, c, d will be in that order. > > This is currently true, but may not always be. We want to reserve the right > to re-order the fields even if it doesn't improve packing — for example, if > two fields are frequently accessed together, field reordering could yield > substantial locality benefits. We've also discussed reordering fields to put > them in a canonical order for resilience, since it's a little > counter-intuitive that reordering the fields of a struct should be > ABI-breaking. (There are arguments against doing that as well, of course — > for example, the programmer may have chosen the current order for their own > locality optimizations.) > >> It looks like I should be defining my structs (the ones for which memory >> layout is important) in C and import them. > > This should always work, yes. > >> Although I would be surprised if a Swift-struct containing only same-sized >> fields (all of the same primitive type) would be reordered, and such changes >> to the language would probably include some per-struct way to express some >> sort of layout control (since being able to define structs to be used for >> low level data manipulation is important in a systems language). > > Exactly. In the long term, Swift will have some explicit tools for layout > control. > > John. > >> >> /Jens >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Jens Persson via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I should perhaps add that in my image processing code, I use code like this: >> >> func withVImageBuffer<Data, R>(for table: Table<Data>, body: (vImage_Buffer) >> -> R) -> R >> where >> Data.Coordinate.Index == VectorIndex2 >> { >> let vib = vImage_Buffer( >> data: table.baseAddress, >> height: vImagePixelCount(table.size.e1), >> width: vImagePixelCount(table.size.e0), >> rowBytes: table.stride.e1 >> ) >> return withExtendedLifetime(table) { body(vib) } >> } >> >> Here, Table<Data> is the raster image. Data.Coordinate == VectorIndex2 makes >> it a 2D table, and a Table's Data also has a type parameter Data.Value which >> can be eg one of the "pixel"-struct I showed before. >> This works without any problems (I've tested and used the some variant of >> this type of code for years) but it would surely break if the memory layout >> of simple structs changed. >> >> I can't see how this usage is much different from the one in the Metal >> tutorial. It too uses pointers to point into a data created using the >> (Swift) struct "Vertex", and the GPU hardware has its expectations on the >> memory layout of that data, so the code would break if the memory layout of >> the Vertex struct changed. >> >> /Jens >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Jens Persson <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I don't think I'm misunderstanding you, but I might be, so I'll add more >> detail: >> >> If you look at the Metal article, you'll see that the (Swift) struct >> "Vertex" is used to specify the data that is sent to Metal for creating a >> buffer (using MTLDevice.makeBuffer). The result that the GPU will produce >> surely depends on the fields of the Vertex struct (x, y, z, r, g, b, a) >> being in the specified order (ie swapping the red channel with the x >> coordinate would produce an unexpected result). >> >> And regarding the second example, pixel structs used for manipulating raster >> image data. Manipulating raster image data presumably includes stuff like >> displaying to screen, loading and saving raster images. >> I currently use this way of doing this right now without any problems, but >> if the order of the fields (eg a, r, g, b) should change in the future, then >> my code would break (the colors of the images would at least not come out as >> expected). >> >> /Jens >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:23 AM, Jens Persson <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Hi Susan, >>> >>> Swift does not currently specify a layout for Swift structs. You shouldn’t >>> be using them for memory mapped i/o or writing to a file, because their >>> layout can change. When ABI stability for fragile structs lands, you will >>> be able to count on it, but until then something like this is probably a >>> bad idea. >>> >>> -Chris >>> >>> Does this imply that you should never use Swift structs to eg interact with >>> Metal? >> >> No. >> >>> This seems to be a very common practice. Here is a typical example (from a >>> Metal tutorial at raywenderlich.com <http://raywenderlich.com/>): >>> >>> struct Vertex { >>> var x,y,z: Float // position data >>> var r,g,b,a: Float // color data >>> >>> func floatBuffer() -> [Float] { >>> return [x,y,z,r,g,b,a] >>> } >>> } >> >> This doesn’t appear to expose the layout of the struct. >>> Also, does it imply that we cannot use structs (of only primitive types) >>> like: >>> >>> struct RgbaFloatsLinearGamma { >>> var r, g, b, a: Float >>> … >>> } >>> struct BgraBytesSrgbGamma { >>> var b, g, r, a: UInt8 >>> } >>> >>> for manipulating raster image data? >> >> I don’t see why that would be a problem. >> >>> I vaguely remember a swift evo discussion where it was concluded that such >>> usage was considered OK provided the stored properties of the structs was >>> only primitive types, but I can't find it now. >>> >>> Perhaps it could be considered OK at least when the intended platforms are >>> known to be only iOS devices? >> >> I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. It isn’t correct to take >> (e.g.) an unsafepointer to the beginning of a struct, and serialize that out >> to disk, and expect that the fields are emitted in some order with some >> specific padding between them. None of the uses above try to do this. >> >> -Chris >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
