I have a few related questions about pragmas. What got me started on this line of questions was trying to determine whether it's possible to disable some warnings without going all the way to no worries (I'd still like to worry, at least a little bit!). And I'm still interested in the answer to that specific question.
But thinking about that issue made me realize that I don't really understand how pragmas work. It's clear that at least some pragmas take arguments (e.g., use isms<Perl5>). But they don't seem to be functions. Where do they fit into the overall MOP? Are they sort of like Traits? Or packages? Is there any way to introspect over them? See what pragmas are currently in effect?
Are pragmas built into the language, or are they something that users can add? When writing a library, I'd love to have some errors/warnings that users can optionally disable with a pragma – is that possible, or are they restricted to use in the compiler? If I can create my pragmas, is there a practical difference between setting something with a pragma versus with a dynamic variable, aside from the cleaner look of a pragma? For that matter, how do we decide what language features should be set with a pragma versus a variable (e.g., why is $*TOLERANCE not a pragma)?
Basically, I'd be interested in any info about pragmas that you could offer or point me towards – though my specific question is still whether I can selectively turn off certain warnings.
Currently, pragmas are hard-coded in the handling of the use statement. They usually either set some flag in a hash that is associated with the lexical scope of the moment, or change the setting of a dynamic variable in the grammar.
Since use is a compile time construct, you can only use compile time constructs to get at them (currently) (so you'd need BEGIN if it is not part of a use).
I have been in favour of decoupling use from pragma's in the past, as I see them as mostly a holdover from the Perl roots of Raku.
All of this will be changed in the RakuAST branch. I'm not sure what Jonathan Worthington has in mind regarding pragmas in the RakuAST context. For one thing, I think we should be able to "export" a pragma to the scope of a use statement.
I try to code floating adder;
https://github.com/ElectronNest/FPU/blob/master/FloatAdd.scala
This is half way.
The normalization is huge code part, so I would like to use for-loop or some equivalent representation method.
Is it possible to use loop or we need strict coding?
Best,
S.Takano
This is a very general and large question. The equivalent of a for loop in hardware can be implemented using a number of techniques, pretty much all of them involving registers to hold state information. Looking at your code I would suggest that you start a little smaller and work on syntax, I see many syntax errors currently. I use IntelliJ community edition as an editor because it does a great job with helping to get the code properly structured. I also would strongly recommend starting from the chisel-template repository. It has the proper layout and examples of a working circuit and unit testing harness. Then start with a smaller implementation that does something simple like just pass input to output and runs in a test harness, then slowly build up the circuit to achieve your goals.
Good luck!
Welcome and thank you for your interest in Chisel!
I would like to echo Chick's suggestion to start from something small that compiles and simulates and build up from there. In particular, the linked code above conflates some Scala vs. Chisel constructs (eg. Scala's if else, vs. Chisel's when, .elsewhen, .otherwise), as well as some Verilog vs. Chisel concepts (eg. bit indexing with [high:low] vs. Chisel's (high, low))
In case you haven't seen it, I would suggest taking a look at the Chisel Bootcamp which helps explain how to use constructs like for loops to generate hardware.
I'll also plug my own responses to this question on the chisel-users mailing list where I tried to explain some of the intuition behind writing Chisel generators, including differentiating if and when and using for loops.
Specifically, my issue is that I have CUDA code that needs <curand_kernel.h> to run. This isn't included by default in NVRTC. Presumably then when creating the program context (i.e. the call to nvrtcCreateProgram), I have to send in the name of the file (curand_kernel.h) and also the source code of curand_kernel.h? I feel like I shouldn't have to do that.
It's hard to tell; I haven't managed to find an example from NVIDIA of someone needing standard CUDA files like this as a source, so I really don't understand what the syntax is. Some issues: curand_kernel.h also has includes... Do I have to do the same for each of these? I am not even sure the NVRTC compiler will even run correctly on curand_kernel.h, because there are some language features it doesn't support, aren't there?
Next: if you've sent in the source code of a header file to nvrtcCreateProgram, do I still have to #include it in the code to be executed / will it cause an error if I do so?
A link to example code that does this or something like it would be appreciated much more than a straightforward answer; I really haven't managed to find any.
You have to send the "filename" and the source of each header separately.
When the preprocessor does its thing, it'll use any #include filenames as a key to find the source for the header, based on the collection that you provide.
I suspect that, in this case, the compiler (driver) doesn't have file system access, so you have to give it the source in much the same way that you would for shader includes in OpenGL.
So:
Include your header's name when calling nvrtcCreateProgram. The compiler will, internally, generate the equivalent of a std::map<string,string> containing the source of each header indexed by the given name.
In your kernel source, use #include "foo.cuh" as usual.
The compiler will use foo.cuh as an index or key into its internal map (created when you called nvrtcCreateProgram), and will retrieve the header source from that collection
Compilation proceeds as normal.
One of the reasons that nvrtc provides only a "subset" of features is that the compiler plays in a somewhat sandboxed environment, without necessarily having all of the supporting tools and utilities lying around that you have with offline compilation. So, you have to manually handle a lot of the stuff that the normal nvcc + (gcc | MSVC| clang) combination provides.
A possible, but non-ideal, solution would be to preprocess the file that you need in your IDE, save the result and then #include that. However, I bet there is a better way to do that. if you just want curand, consider diving into the library and extracting the part you need (blech) or using another GPU-friendly rand implementation. On older CUDA versions, I just generated a big array of random floats on the host, uploaded it to the GPU, and sampled it in the kernels.
This related link may be helpful.
You do not need to load curand_kernel.h yourself and add it to the include "aliases" mechanism.
Instead, you can simply add the CUDA include directory to your (set of) include paths, e.g. by adding --include-path=/usr/local/cuda/include to your NVRTC compiler options.
(I do this in my GPU-kernel-runner test harness, by default, to be on the safe side.)
I'm going to do a presentation about programming languages in our class, gonna talk about the basics. It's going to be a brief one, around 5-10 minutes. The audience has no knowledge in this subject.
One of the things I'm going to talk about is low-level and high-level languages, and machine code. To simplify and visualize the difference I created this image.
But this is just a guess. I'm not sure if this is correct. Probably not. Could you enlighten me on how this process works without going into too much detail?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. If not, I'll move it to somewhere else. Guide me. Also, about the title and the tags, you can correct them.
What happens largely depends on your environment, so there is no one answer. A general high level view, considering you're starting with what appears to be the C language and assuming its a standard environment (not something such as a Java virtual machine) is that:
A compiler converts C to assembly
An assembler converts assembly to object code (what you show as "low-level language")
A linker gathers one or more file of object code and attempts to fill out its needs with the content of libraries it knows about. This output is still object code, but step 3's object code was for a specific file's instructions only. This object code is in a format appropriate for step 4.
A loader reads the program into memory, potentially satisfying dynamic links that are required to run the program. It takes operating system specific steps to create a process that will execute the program.
To take an example, consider a set of discounts available to a supermarket shopper.
We could define these rules as data in some standard fashion (lists of qualifying items, applicable dates, coupon codes) and write generic code to handle these. Or, we could write each as a chunk of code, which checks for the appropriate things given the customer's shopping list and returns any applicable discounts.
You could reasonably store the rules as objects, serialised into Blobs or stored in code files, so that each rule could choose its own division between data and code, to allow for future rules that wouldn't fit the type of generic processor considered above.
It's often easy to criticise code that mixes data in, via if statements that check for 6 different things that should be in a file or a database, but is there a rule that helps in the edge cases?
Or is this the point of Object Oriented design, to stop us worrying about the line between data and code?
To clarify, the underlying question is this: How would you code the above example? Is there a rule of thumb that made you decide what is data and what is code?
(Note: I know, code can be compiled, but in a world of dynamic languages and JIT compilation, even that is a blurry concept.)
Fundamentally, there is of course no difference between data and code, but for real software infrastructures, there can be a big difference. Apart from obvious things like, as you mentioned, compilation, the biggest issue is this:
Most sufficiently large projects are designed to produce "releases" that are one big bundle, produced in 3-month (or longer) cycles, tested extensively and cannot be changed afterwards except in tightly controlled ways. "Code" most definitely cannot be changed, so anything that does need to be changed has to be factored out and made "configuration data" so that changing it becomes palatable those whose job it is to ensure that a release works.
Of course, in most cases bad configuration data can break a release just as thoroughly as bad code, so the whole thing is largely an illusion - in reality it doesn't matter whether it's code or "configuration data" that changes, what matters is that the interface between the main system and the parts that change is narrow and well-defined enough to give you a good chance that the person who does the change understands all consequences of what he's doing.
This is already harder than most people think when it's really just a few strings and numbers that are configured (I've personally witnessed a production mainframe system crash because it had one boolean value set differently than another system it was talking to). When your "configuration data" contains complex logic, it's almost impossible to achieve. But the situation isn't going to be any better ust because you use a badly-designed ad hoc "rules configuration" language instead of "real" code.
This is a rather philosophical question (which I like) so I'll answer it in a philosophical way: with nothing much to back it up. ;)
Data is the part of a system that can change. Code defines behavior; the way in which data can change into new data.
To put it more accurately: Data can be described by two components: a description of what the datum is supposed to represent (for instance, a variable with a name and a type) and a value.
The value of the variable can change according to rules defined in code. The description does not change, of course, because if it does, we have a whole new piece of information.
The code itself does not change, unless requirements (what we expect of the system) change.
To a compiler (or a VM), code is actually the data on which it performs its operations. However, the to-be-compiled code does not specify behavior for the compiler, the compiler's own code does that.
It all depends on the requirement. If the data is like lookup data and changes frequently you dont really want to do it in code, but things like Day of the Week, should not chnage for the next 200 years or so, so code that.
You might consider changing your topic, as the first thing I thought of when I saw it, was the age old LISP discussion of code vs data. Lucky in Scheme code and data looks the same, but thats about it, you can never accidentally mix code with data as is very possible in LISP with unhygienic macros.
Data are information that are processed by instructions called Code. I'm not sure I feel there's a blurring in OOD, there are still properties (Data) and methods (Code). The OO theory encapsulates both into a gestalt entity called a Class but they are still discrete within the Class.
How flexible you want to make your code in a matter of choice. Including constant values (what you are doing by using if statements as described above) is inflexible without re-processing your source, whereas using dynamically sourced data is more flexible. Is either approach wrong? I would say it really depends on the circumstances. As Leppie said, there are certain 'data' points that are invariate, like the days of the week that can be hard coded but even there it may be advantageous to do it dynamically in certain circumstances.
In Lisp, your code is data, and your
data is code
In Prolog clauses are terms, and terms
are clauses.
The important note is that you want to separate out the part of your code that will execute the same every time, (i.e. applying a discount) from the part of your code which could change (i.e. the products to be discounted, or the % of the discount, etc.)
This is simply for safety. If a discount changes, you won't have to re-write your discount code, you'll only need to go into your discounts repository (DB, or app file, or xml file, or however you choose to implement it) and make a small change to a number.
Also, if the discount code is separated into an XML file, then you can give the entire application to a manager, and with sufficient instructions, they won't need to pester you whenever they want to change the discount rates.
When you mix in data and code, you are exponentially increasing the odds of breaking when anything changes. So, as leppie said, you need to extract the constantly changing parts, and put them in a separate place.
Huge difference. Data is a given to system while code is a part of system.
Wrong data is senseless: our code===handler is good and what you put that you take, it is not a trouble of system that you meant something else. But if code is bad - system is bad.
In example, let's consider some JSON, some bad code parser.js by me and let's say good V8. For my system bad parser.js is a code and my system works wrong. But for Google system my bad parser is data that no how says about quality of V8.
The question is very practical, no sophistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_engineering tries to make good answer and money.
Data is information. It's not about where you decide to put it, be it a db, config file, config through code or inside the classes.
The same happens for behaviors / code. It's not about where you decide to put it or how you choose to represent it.
The line between data and code (program) is blurry. It's ultimately just a question of terminology - for example, you could say that data is everything that is not code. But, as you wrote, they can be happily mixed together (although usually it's better to keep them separate).
Code is any data which can be executed. Now since all data is used as input to some program at some point of time, it can be said that this data is executed by a program! Thus your program acts as a virtual machine for your data. Hence in theory there is no difference between data and code!
In the end what matters is software engineering/development considerations like performance, efficiency etc. For example data driven programs may not be as efficient as programs which have hard coded (and hence fragile) conditional statements. Hence I choose to define code as any data which can be efficiently executed and all else being plain data.
It's a tradeoff between flexibility and efficiency. Executable data (like XML rules) offers more flexibility (sometimes) while the same data/rules when coded as part of the application will run more efficiently but changing it frequently becomes cumbersome. In other words executable data is easy to deploy but is inefficient and vice-versa. So ultimately the decision rests with you - the software designer.
Please correct me if I wrong.
Relationship between code and data is as follows:
code after compiled to a program processes the data while execution
program can extract data, transform data, load data, generate data ...
Also
program can extract code, transform code, load code, generate code tooooooo...
Hence code without compiled or interperator is useless, data is always worth..., but code after compiled can do all the above activities....
For eg)
Sourcecontrolsystem process Sourcecodes
here source code itself is a code
Backupscripts process files
here files is a data and so on...
I would say that the distinction between data, code and configuration is something to be made within the context of a particular component. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes less so.
For example, to a compiler, the source code it consumes and the object code it creates are both data - and should be separated from the compiler's own code.
In your case you seem to be describing the option of a particularly powerful configuration file, which can contain code. Much as, for example, the GIMP lets you 'configure' plugins using Scheme. As the developer of the component that reads this configuration, you would think of it as data. When working at a different level -- writing the configuration -- you would think of it as code.
This is a very powerful way of designing.
Applying this to the underlying question ("How would you code the above example?"), one option might be to adopt or design a high level Domain Specific Language (DSL) for specifying rules. At startup, or when first required, the server reads the rule and executes it.
Provide an admin interface allowing the administrator to
test a new rule file
replace the current configuration with that from a new rule file
... all of which would happen at runtime.
A DSL might be something as simple as a table parser or an XML parser, or it could be something as sophisticated as a scripting language. From C, it's easy to embed Python or Lua. From Java it's easy to embed Groovy or Clojure.
You could switch in compiled code at runtime, with clever linking or classloader tricks. This seems more difficult and less valuable than the embedded DSL option, in my opinion.
The best practical answer to this question I found is this:
Any class that needs to be serialized, now or in any foreseeable future, is data.
Everything else is code.
That's why, for example, Java's HashMap is data - although it has a lot of code, API methods and specific implementation (i.e., it might look as code at first glance).