I mean, interpreters work on a list of instructions, which seem to be composed more or less by sequences of bytes, usually stored as integers. Opcodes are retrieved from these integers, by doing bit-wise operations, for use in a big switch statement where all operations are located.
My specific question is: How do the object values get stored/retrieved?
For example, let's (non-realistically) assume:
Our instructions are unsigned 32 bit integers.
We've reserved the first 4 bits of the integer for opcodes.
If I wanted to store data in the same integer as my opcode, I'm limited to a 24 bit integer. If I wanted to store it in the next instruction, I'm limited to a 32 bit value.
Values like Strings require lots more storage than this. How do most interpreters get away with this in an efficient manner?
I'm going to start by assuming that you're interested primarily (if not exclusively) in a byte-code interpreter or something similar (since your question seems to assume that). An interpreter that works directly from source code (in raw or tokenized form) is a fair amount different.
For a typical byte-code interpreter, you basically design some idealized machine. Stack-based (or at least stack-oriented) designs are pretty common for this purpose, so let's assume that.
So, first let's consider the choice of 4 bits for op-codes. A lot here will depend on how many data formats we want to support, and whether we're including that in the 4 bits for the op code. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the basic data types supported by the virtual machine proper are 8-bit and 64-bit integers (which can also be used for addressing), and 32-bit and 64-bit floating point.
For integers we pretty much need to support at least: add, subtract, multiply, divide, and, or, xor, not, negate, compare, test, left/right shift/rotate (right shifts in both logical and arithmetic varieties), load, and store. Floating point will support the same arithmetic operations, but remove the logical/bitwise operations. We'll also need some branch/jump operations (unconditional jump, jump if zero, jump if not zero, etc.) For a stack machine, we probably also want at least a few stack oriented instructions (push, pop, dupe, possibly rotate, etc.)
That gives us a two-bit field for the data type, and at least 5 (quite possibly 6) bits for the op-code field. Instead of conditional jumps being special instructions, we might want to have just one jump instruction, and a few bits to specify conditional execution that can be applied to any instruction. We also pretty much need to specify at least a few addressing modes:
Optional: small immediate (N bits of data in the instruction itself)
large immediate (data in the 64-bit word following the instruction)
implied (operand(s) on top of stack)
Absolute (address specified in 64 bits following instruction)
relative (offset specified in or following instruction)
I've done my best to keep everything about as minimal as is at all reasonable here -- you might well want more to improve efficiency.
Anyway, in a model like this, an object's value is just some locations in memory. Likewise, a string is just some sequence of 8-bit integers in memory. Nearly all manipulation of objects/strings is done via the stack. For example, let's assume you had some classes A and B defined like:
class A {
int x;
int y;
};
class B {
int a;
int b;
};
...and some code like:
A a {1, 2};
B b {3, 4};
a.x += b.a;
The initialization would mean values in the executable file loaded into the memory locations assigned to a and b. The addition could then produce code something like this:
push immediate a.x // put &a.x on top of stack
dupe // copy address to next lower stack position
load // load value from a.x
push immediate b.a // put &b.a on top of stack
load // load value from b.a
add // add two values
store // store back to a.x using address placed on stack with `dupe`
Assuming one byte for each instruction proper, we end up around 23 bytes for the sequence as a whole, 16 bytes of which are addresses. If we use 32-bit addressing instead of 64-bit, we can reduce that by 8 bytes (i.e., a total of 15 bytes).
The most obvious thing to keep in mind is that the virtual machine implemented by a typical byte-code interpreter (or similar) isn't all that different from a "real" machine implemented in hardware. You might add some instructions that are important to the model you're trying to implement (e.g., the JVM includes instructions to directly support its security model), or you might leave out a few if you only want to support languages that don't include them (e.g., I suppose you could leave out a few like xor if you really wanted to). You also need to decide what sort of virtual machine you're going to support. What I've portrayed above is stack-oriented, but you can certainly do a register-oriented machine if you prefer.
Either way, most of object access, string storage, etc., comes down to them being locations in memory. The machine will retrieve data from those locations into the stack/registers, manipulate as appropriate, and store back to the locations of the destination object(s).
Bytecode interpreters that I'm familiar with do this using constant tables. When the compiler is generating bytecode for a chunk of source, it is also generating a little constant table that rides along with that bytecode. (For example, if the bytecode gets stuffed into some kind of "function" object, the constant table will go in there too.)
Any time the compiler encounters a literal like a string or a number, it creates an actual runtime object for the value that the interpreter can work with. It adds that to the constant table and gets the index where the value was added. Then it emits something like a LOAD_CONSTANT instruction that has an argument whose value is the index in the constant table.
Here's an example:
static void string(Compiler* compiler, int allowAssignment)
{
// Define a constant for the literal.
int constant = addConstant(compiler, wrenNewString(compiler->parser->vm,
compiler->parser->currentString, compiler->parser->currentStringLength));
// Compile the code to load the constant.
emit(compiler, CODE_CONSTANT);
emit(compiler, constant);
}
At runtime, to implement a LOAD_CONSTANT instruction, you just decode the argument, and pull the object out of the constant table.
Here's an example:
CASE_CODE(CONSTANT):
PUSH(frame->fn->constants[READ_ARG()]);
DISPATCH();
For things like small numbers and frequently used values like true and null, you may devote dedicated instructions to them, but that's just an optimization.
Related
According to the MIPS documentation, functions output is stored in $v0-$v1 (up to 64 bits), and the function arguments are given in $a0-$a3, where any additional arguments are written to the stack.
Since the function is allowed to overwrite the values of $v0-$v1, wouldn't it be better to pass the function fifth argument (if such exist) on $v0?
What is the motivation for using the stack in this case?
You are right that the $v registers are available to be used to pass parameters.
MIPS has, at times, updated the calling convention, for example: the "MIPS EABI 32-bit Calling Convention", redefines 4 of the original $t registers, $8-$11, as additional argument registers, to pass up to 8 integer arguments in total.
We might also consider that $at aka $1 — the assembler temp — is also available at the point for parameter passing.
However, object model invocations, e.g. those involving vtables, thunks and other stubs such as long calls, perhaps cross library (DLL) calls, can require an available register or two that are scratch, so it would not necessarily be best to use every one of the scratch registers for arguments.
Discussion
In general, other than that I'm not sure why they don't just get rid of most of the $t registers (and $v registers) and make them all $a registers — these would only be used when needed, and otherwise those unused argument registers would serve the same purpose as $t registers. The more parameters, the fewer scratch registers — though in both caller and callee — but I think tradeoff can be made instead of guaranteeing some larger minimum number of scratch registers as in current ABIs.
Still, without some bare minimum number of scratch registers, you would sometimes end up using memory, spilling already computed arguments to memory in order to have free registers to compute the last couple of parameters, only to have to reload those spilled values back into registers. If that were to happen, might as well have passed some of them in memory in the first place, especially since the callee may also have to store some of the arguments to memory anyway (e.g. the callee is not a leaf function, and parameters are needed after further calls).
8 argument registers is probably already on the tapering end of the curve of usefulness, so past thereabouts adding more probably has negligible returns on real code bases.
Also, a language can invent/define its own calling convention: these calling conventions are the standard for C language interoperability. Even the C compiler can use custom calling conventions when it is certain that such language interoperability is not required, as we can also do in assembly when we know more details about function implementations (i.e. their internal register usages) than just the function signature.
Nicely collected set details on various calling conventions:
https://www.dyncall.org/docs/manual/manualse11.html
Addendum:
Let's assume a machine with only 2 registers, call them A & B, and it uses both to pass parameters. Let's say a first parameter is computed into A (using B register as scratch if needed). In computing the value of the 2nd parameter, for B, it may run out of scratch registers, especially if the expression for that actual argument is complicated. When out of registers, we spill something to memory, here let's say, the already computed A. Now the parameter for B can be computed with that extra register. However, the A parameter value, now in memory, needs to return back to the A register before the call. Thus, this is worse than passing A in memory b/c the caller has to do both a store and a load, whereas passing in memory means just the store.
Now add to that situation that the callee may have to store the parameter to memory as well (various possible reasons). That means another store to memory. So, in total, if the above scenario coincides with this one, then a store, a load and another store — contrasted with memory parameter passing, which would have just the one store by the caller.
For example if I type:
-6
Through what mechanism is that turned into:
1010
Would it be hardware based or somewhere in the kernel?
Would it be hardware based or somewhere in the kernel?
Usually no and no.
The kernel in a mainstream OS like Linux will usually just pass along bytes of text to user-space.
So a user-space program gets a string, i.e. a sequence of characters. (In simple cases, e.g. the ASCII subset of UTF-8, each character is a single byte.) A program would typically use a function like atoi() to convert a sequence of characters (representing ASCII codes for digits) to a binary integer. It's a standard library function because many programs need to deal with strings that represent integers, but it's a software function just like any other.
A simple implementation would have a loop like
int sum = 0;
for (auto d: digits) { // look at digits in MSB-first order
sum = 10*sum + d;
}
// the first digit ends up being multiplied by 10 n times
// the 2nd by 10 n-1 times, and so on. Each digit is multiplied by its place value.
This C++ source would be compiled to multiple asm instructions that implement it. Handling an optional - by negating is also a separate instruction. There's typically a neg instruction of some sort, or a way to subtract from zero, to get the 2's complement inverse. (Assuming 2's complement hardware).
You can speed this up by using fancier instructions that do more work per instruction / per clock cycle. On x86 for example you can convert a multi-digit string of digits to a binary integer with a few SIMD instructions, but that's still just using multiply and add instructions. See How to implement atoi using SIMD? for a nice use of pmaddwd to multiply by a vector of place-values and horizontally add. Also Fastest way to get IPv4 address from string is a cool examples of what you can do with packed-compare and looking up a pshufb shuffle-control vector from a table based on that compare result.
A function like scanf("%d", &num) that reads input as a number is implemented in user-space, but under the hood it uses a system call like read() to get data. (If the C stdio input buffer was empty.)
Some "toy" / teaching systems like the MARS and SPIM MIPS simulators have system calls that get get or print integers (with the input or result in an integer register). In that case, yes, the kernel does it in software.
Or depending on the implementation, there isn't actually a kernel at all, and the syscall instruction escapes to the emulator / simulator's input/output function, so from the POV of software running inside this virtual simulated machine, there really is hardware support for integer conversion. But no real hardware does the entire thing in microcode or actual hardware, at least not any mainstream architectures.
The question
What are the ways of coercing octave to create a real copy of whatever object? Structures are the main interest.
My underlying problem
In my problem I'm obtaining a rather large structure from another function in a loop but for the current task only a few pieces of it are needed. For example:
for i=1:many
res=solver(params);
store1{i}=res.string1;
store2{i}=res.arr(:,1);
end
res is a sizable chunk of data and due to lazy-copy those store-s are references to tiny portions of bytes in that chunk. After I store those tiny portions, I don't need res itself, however, since middle of that chunk is referenced by store, the memory area is unfit for res obtained on the next iteration (they are of the same size) and thus another sizable piece of memory is allocated, which is then again crossed by few tiny links an so on.
Without storing parts of res, the program successfully keeps the memory consumption same after first couple of iterations.
So how do I make a complete copy of structure field?
I've tried using struct-related functions like rmfield but those keep references instead of their own objects.
I've tried to wrap the assignment of in its own function:
new_struct=copy( rmfield(old_struct,"bigdata"));
function c=copy(a);
c=a;
end;
This by the way doesn't work even for arrays.
I'm interested in method applicable to any generic variable.
Minimal working example of the problem
a=cell(3,1);
for i=1:length(a);
r=rand(100000,1000);
a{i}=r(1:100,end);
whos; fflush(stdout);
pause(2);
end;
The above code will cause memory usage to gradually grow by far more than 8.08 kb reported by whos due to references stored by a{i} blocking bigger memory block than they actually need. If you force the proper copy, the problem is not present.
Numerical arrays
For numeric types addition of zero is enough to warrant a new array.
c=a+0;
Strings
For string which is 1 x n char array, something along the following lines will work:
c=[a "a"](1:end-1);
Multidimensional char arrays will require concatenation with a column:
c=[a true(size(a,1),1)](:,1:end-1);
Here true is used to generate dummy array of size compatible with char. (There seems to be no procedural method of generating char array of arbitrary size) char(zeros(size(a,1),1)) and char(true(size(a,1),1)) caused excess memory usage during their creation on some calls.
Note that empty concatenation c=[a ""]; will not result in a copying. Also it is possible to do c=[a+0 ""]; which will result in a copying due to +0 but that one infers type conversions to and from double which is 8 times larger in size. (char(zeros( doesn't seem to cause that)
Other types
In general you can use casting for the types allowed by it in order to not tailor the expressions manually as I had to do above:
typelist={"double","single","char"}; %full list of supported types is available in the link
class_of_a = typelist{ isa(a,typelist) };
c=typecast( [typecast(a,'single'); single(1)] (1:end-1), class_of_a);
Single is seemingly smallest datatype available in octave.
Note that logical is not supported by this method.
Copying structures
Apparently you'd have to write your own function to go around struct fields, copy them with above methods and recursively go to substructs.
(As it doesn't involve complexities relevant here, I'd rather leave that to be done by those who actually needs that, my own problem being solved by +0's.)
I know the "<<" is a bit operation. but I do not understand what it exactly functions in TCL, and when should we use it?
can anyone help me on this?
The << operator in Tcl's expressions is an arithmetic bit shift left. It's exceptionally similar to the equivalent in C and many other languages, and would be used in all the same places (it's logically equivalent to a multiply by a suitable power of 2, but it's usually advisable to use a shift when thinking about bits and a multiply when thinking about numbers).
Note that one key difference with many other languages (from Tcl 8.5 onwards) is that it does not “drop bits off the front”; the language implementation automatically uses wider number representations as necessary so that information is never lost. Bits are dropped by using a separate binary mask operation (e.g., & ((1 << $numBits) - 1)).
There are a number of uses for the << shift left operator. Some that come to my mind are :
Bit by bit processing. Shift a number and observe highest order bit etc. It comes in more handy than you might think.
If you add a zero to a number in the decimal number system you effectively multiply it by 10. shifting bits effectively means multiplying by 2. This actually translated into a low level assembly command of bit shifting which has lower compute cycles than multiplication by 2. This is used for efficiency in the gaming industry. Shift if twice (<< 2) to multiply it by 4 and so on.
I am sure there are many others.
The << operation is not much different from C's, for instance. And it's used when you need to shift bits of an integer value to the left. This can be occasionally useful when doing subtle number crunching like implemening a hash function or deserialising something from an input bytestream (but note that [binary scan] covers almost all of what's needed for this sort of thing). For a more general info refer to this Wikipedia article or something like this, this is not really Tcl-related.
The '<<' is a left bit shift. You must apply it to an integer. This arithmetic operator will shift the bits to left.
For example, if you want to shifted the number 1 twice to the left in the Tcl interpreter tclsh, type:
expr { 1 << 2 }
The command will return 4.
Pay special attention to the maximum integer the interpreter hold on your platform.
We were asked to find a way to compress a square binary matrix as much as possible, and if possible, to add redundancy bits to check and maybe correct errors.
The redundancy thing is easy to implement in my opinion. The complicated part is compressing the matrix. I thought about using run-length after reshaping the matrix to a vector because there will be more zeros than ones, but I only achieved a 40bits compression (we are working on small sizes) although I thought it'd be better.
Also, after run-length an idea was Huffman coding the matrix, but a dictionary must be sent in order to recover the original information.
I'd like to know what would be the best way to compress a binary matrix?
After reading some comments, yes #Adam you're right, the 14x14 matrix should be compressed in 128bits, so if I only use the coordinates (rows&cols) for each non-zero element, still it would be 160bits (since there are twenty ones). I'm not looking for an exact solution but for a useful idea.
You can only talk about compressing something if you have a distribution and a representation. That's the issue of the dictionary you have to send along: you always need some sort of dictionary of protocol to uncompress something. It just so happens that things like .zip and .mpeg already have those dictionaries/codecs. Even something as simple as Huffman-encoding is an algorithm; on the other side of the communication channel (you can think of compression as communication), the other person already has a bit of code (the dictionary) to perform the Huffman decompression scheme.
Thus you cannot even begin to talk about compressing something without first thinking "what kinds of matrices do I expect to see?", "is the data truly random, or is there order?", and if so "how can I represent the matrices to take advantage of order in the data?".
You cannot compress some matrices without increasing the size of other objects (by at least 1 bit). This is bad news if all matrices are equally probable, and you care equally about them all.
Addenda:
The answer to use sparse matrix machinery is not necessarily the right answer. The matrix could for example be represented in python as [[(r+c)%2 for c in range (cols)] for r in range(rows)] (a checkerboard pattern), and a sparse matrix wouldn't compress it at all, but the Kolmogorov complexity of the matrix is the above program's length.
Well, I know every matrix will have the same number of ones, so this is kind of deterministic. The only think I don't know is where the 1's will be. Also, if I transmit the matrix with a dictionary and there are burst errors, maybe the dictionary gets affected so... wouldnt be the resulting information corrupted? That's why I was trying to use lossless data compression such as run-length, the decoder just doesnt need a dictionary. --original poster
How many 1s does the matrix have as a fraction of its size, and what is its size (NxN -- what is N)?
Furthermore, this is an incorrect assertion and should not be used as a reason to desire run-length encoding (which still requires a program); when you transmit data over a channel, you can always add error-correction to this data. "Data" is just a blob of bits. You can transmit both the data and any required dictionaries over the channel. The error-correcting machinery does not care at all what the bits you transmit are for.
Addendum 2:
There are (14*14) choose 20 possible arrangements, which I assume are randomly chosen. If this number was larger than 128^2 what you're trying to do would be impossible. Fortunately log_2((14*14) choose 20) ~= 90bits < 128bits so it's possible.
The simple solution of writing down 20 numbers like 32,2,67,175,52,...,168 won't work because log_2(14*14)*20 ~= 153bits > 128bits. This would be equivalent to run-length encoding. We want to do something like this but we are on a very strict budget and cannot afford to be "wasteful" with bits.
Because you care about each possibility equally, your "dictionary"/"program" will simulate a giant lookup table. Matlab's sparse matrix implementation may work but is not guaranteed to work and is thus not a correct solution.
If you can create a bijection between the number range [0,2^128) and subsets of size 20, you're good to go. This corresponds to enumerating ways to descend the pyramid in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_coefficient to the 20th element of row 196. This is the same as enumerating all "k-combinations". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination#Enumerating_k-combinations
Fortunately I know that Mathematica and Sage and other CAS software can apparently generate the "5th" or "12th" or arbitrarily numbered k-subset. Looking through their documentation, we come upon a function called "rank", e.g. http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/combinat/subset.html
So then we do some more searching, and come across some arcane Fortran code like http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/m_src/subset/ksub_rank.m and http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/m_src/subset/ksub_unrank.m
We could reverse-engineer it, but it's kind of dense. But now we have enough information to search for k-subset rank unrank, which leads us to http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~lucia/courses/5165-09/GenCombObj.pdf -- see the section
"Generating k-subsets (of an n-set): Lexicographical
Ordering" and the rank and unrank algorithms on the next few pages.
In order to achieve the exact theoretically optimal compression, in the case of a uniformly random distribution of 1s, we must thus use this technique to biject our matrices to our output number of range <2^128. It just so happens that combinations have a natural ordering, known as ranking and unranking of combinations. You assign a number to each combination (ranking), and if you know the number you automatically know the combination (unranking). Googling k-subset rank unrank will probably yield other algorithms.
Thus your solution would look like this:
serialize the matrix into a list
e.g. [[0,0,1][0,1,1][1,0,0]] -> [0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0]
take the indices of the 1s:
e.g. [0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0] -> [3,5,6,7]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a k=4-subset of an n=9 set
take the rank
e.g. compressed = rank([3,5,6,7], n=9)
compressed==412 (or something, I made that up)
you're done!
e.g. 412 -binary-> 110011100 (at most n=9bits, less than 2^n=2^9=512)
to uncompress, unrank it
I'll get to 128 bits in a sec, first here's how you fit a 14x14 boolean matrix with exactly 20 nonzeros into 136 bits. It's based on the CSC sparse matrix format.
You have an array c with 14 4-bit counters that tell you how many nonzeros are in each column.
You have another array r with 20 4-bit row indices.
56 bits (c) + 80 bits (r) = 136 bits.
Let's squeeze 8 bits out of c:
Instead of 4-bit counters, use 2-bit. c is now 2*14 = 28 bits, but can't support more than 3 nonzeros per column. This leaves us with 128-80-28 = 20 bits. Use that space for array a4c with 5 4-bit elements that "add 4 to an element of c" specified by the 4-bit element. So, if a4c={2,2,10,15, 15} that means c[2] += 4; c[2] += 4 (again); c[10] += 4;.
The "most wasteful" distribution of nonzeros is one where the column count will require an add-4 to support 1 extra nonzero: so 5 columns with 4 nonzeros each. Luckily we have exactly 5 add-4s available.
Total space = 28 bits (c) + 20 bits
(a4c) + 80 bits (r) = 128 bits.
Your input is a perfect candidate for a sparse matrix. You said you're using Matlab, so you already have a good sparse matrix built for you.
spm = sparse(dense_matrix)
Matlab's sparse matrix implementation uses Compressed Sparse Columns, which has memory usage on the order of 2*(# of nonzeros) + (# of columns), which should be pretty good in your case of 20 nonzeros and 14 columns. Storing 20 values sure is better than storing 196...
Also remember that all matrices in Matlab are going to be composed of doubles. Just because your matrix can be stored as a 1-bit boolean doesn't mean Matlab won't stick it into a 64-bit floating point value... If you do need it as a boolean you're going to have to make your own type in C and use .mex files to interface with Matlab.
After thinking about this again, if all your matrices are going to be this small and they're all binary, then just store them as a binary vector (bitmask). Going off your 14x14 example, that requires 196 bits or 25 bytes (plus n, m if your dimensions are not constant). That same vector in Matlab would use 64 bits per element, or 1568 bytes. So storing the matrix as a bitmask takes as much space as 4 elements of the original matrix in Matlab, for a compression ratio of 62x.
Unfortunately I don't know if Matlab supports bitmasks natively or if you have to resort to .mex files. If you do get into C++ you can use STL's vector<bool> which implements a bitmask for you.