Nim Destructors and Move Semantics
About this document
This document describes the upcoming Nim runtime which does not use classical GC algorithms anymore but is based on destructors and move semantics. The new runtime's advantages are that Nim programs become oblivious to the involved heap sizes and programs are easier to write to make effective use of multi-core machines. As a nice bonus, files and sockets and the like will not require manual close
calls anymore.
This document aims to be a precise specification about how move semantics and destructors work in Nim.
Motivating example
With the language mechanisms described here, a custom seq could be written as:
type myseq*[T] = object len, cap: int data: ptr UncheckedArray[T] proc `=destroy`*[T](x: var myseq[T]) = if x.data != nil: for i in 0..<x.len: `=destroy`(x[i]) dealloc(x.data) proc `=copy`*[T](a: var myseq[T]; b: myseq[T]) = # do nothing for self-assignments: if a.data == b.data: return `=destroy`(a) wasMoved(a) a.len = b.len a.cap = b.cap if b.data != nil: a.data = cast[typeof(a.data)](alloc(a.cap * sizeof(T))) for i in 0..<a.len: a.data[i] = b.data[i] proc `=sink`*[T](a: var myseq[T]; b: myseq[T]) = # move assignment, optional. # Compiler is using `=destroy` and `copyMem` when not provided `=destroy`(a) wasMoved(a) a.len = b.len a.cap = b.cap a.data = b.data proc add*[T](x: var myseq[T]; y: sink T) = if x.len >= x.cap: resize(x) x.data[x.len] = y inc x.len proc `[]`*[T](x: myseq[T]; i: Natural): lent T = assert i < x.len x.data[i] proc `[]=`*[T](x: var myseq[T]; i: Natural; y: sink T) = assert i < x.len x.data[i] = y proc createSeq*[T](elems: varargs[T]): myseq[T] = result.cap = elems.len result.len = elems.len result.data = cast[typeof(result.data)](alloc(result.cap * sizeof(T))) for i in 0..<result.len: result.data[i] = elems[i] proc len*[T](x: myseq[T]): int {.inline.} = x.len
Lifetime-tracking hooks
The memory management for Nim's standard string
and seq
types as well as other standard collections is performed via so-called "Lifetime-tracking hooks" or "type-bound operators". There are 3 different hooks for each (generic or concrete) object type T
(T
can also be a distinct
type) that are called implicitly by the compiler.
(Note: The word "hook" here does not imply any kind of dynamic binding or runtime indirections, the implicit calls are statically bound and potentially inlined.)
=destroy
hook
A =destroy
hook frees the object's associated memory and releases other associated resources. Variables are destroyed via this hook when they go out of scope or when the routine they were declared in is about to return.
The prototype of this hook for a type T
needs to be:
proc `=destroy`(x: var T)
The general pattern in =destroy
looks like:
proc `=destroy`(x: var T) = # first check if 'x' was moved to somewhere else: if x.field != nil: freeResource(x.field)
=sink
hook
A =sink
hook moves an object around, the resources are stolen from the source and passed to the destination. It is ensured that the source's destructor does not free the resources afterward by setting the object to its default value (the value the object's state started in). Setting an object x
back to its default value is written as wasMoved(x)
. When not provided the compiler is using a combination of =destroy
and copyMem
instead. This is efficient hence users rarely need to implement their own =sink
operator, it is enough to provide =destroy
and =copy
, compiler will take care of the rest.
The prototype of this hook for a type T
needs to be:
proc `=sink`(dest: var T; source: T)
The general pattern in =sink
looks like:
proc `=sink`(dest: var T; source: T) = `=destroy`(dest) wasMoved(dest) dest.field = source.field
Note: =sink
does not need to check for self-assignments. How self-assignments are handled is explained later in this document.
=copy
hook
The ordinary assignment in Nim conceptually copies the values. The =copy
hook is called for assignments that couldn't be transformed into =sink
operations.
The prototype of this hook for a type T
needs to be:
proc `=copy`(dest: var T; source: T)
The general pattern in =copy
looks like:
proc `=copy`(dest: var T; source: T) = # protect against self-assignments: if dest.field != source.field: `=destroy`(dest) wasMoved(dest) dest.field = duplicateResource(source.field)
The =copy
proc can be marked with the {.error.}
pragma. Then any assignment that otherwise would lead to a copy is prevented at compile-time. This looks like:
proc `=copy`(dest: var T; source: T) {.error.}
but a custom error message (e.g., {.error: "custom error".}
) will not be emitted by the compiler. Notice that there is no =
before the {.error.}
pragma.
Move semantics
A "move" can be regarded as an optimized copy operation. If the source of the copy operation is not used afterward, the copy can be replaced by a move. This document uses the notation lastReadOf(x)
to describe that x
is not used afterwards. This property is computed by a static control flow analysis but can also be enforced by using system.move
explicitly.
Swap
The need to check for self-assignments and also the need to destroy previous objects inside =copy
and =sink
is a strong indicator to treat system.swap
as a builtin primitive of its own that simply swaps every field in the involved objects via copyMem
or a comparable mechanism. In other words, swap(a, b)
is not implemented as let tmp = move(b); b = move(a); a = move(tmp)
.
This has further consequences:
- Objects that contain pointers that point to the same object are not supported by Nim's model. Otherwise swapped objects would end up in an inconsistent state.
- Seqs can use
realloc
in the implementation.
Sink parameters
To move a variable into a collection usually sink
parameters are involved. A location that is passed to a sink
parameter should not be used afterward. This is ensured by a static analysis over a control flow graph. If it cannot be proven to be the last usage of the location, a copy is done instead and this copy is then passed to the sink parameter.
A sink parameter may be consumed once in the proc's body but doesn't have to be consumed at all. The reason for this is that signatures like proc put(t: var Table; k: sink Key, v: sink Value)
should be possible without any further overloads and put
might not take ownership of k
if k
already exists in the table. Sink parameters enable an affine type system, not a linear type system.
The employed static analysis is limited and only concerned with local variables; however, object and tuple fields are treated as separate entities:
proc consume(x: sink Obj) = discard "no implementation" proc main = let tup = (Obj(), Obj()) consume tup[0] # ok, only tup[0] was consumed, tup[1] is still alive: echo tup[1]
Sometimes it is required to explicitly move
a value into its final position:
proc main = var dest, src: array[10, string] # ... for i in 0..high(dest): dest[i] = move(src[i])
An implementation is allowed, but not required to implement even more move optimizations (and the current implementation does not).
Sink parameter inference
The current implementation can do a limited form of sink parameter inference. But it has to be enabled via --sinkInference:on
, either on the command line or via a push
pragma.
To enable it for a section of code, one can use {.push sinkInference: on.}
...`{.pop.}`.
The .nosinks pragma can be used to disable this inference for a single routine:
proc addX(x: T; child: T) {.nosinks.} = x.s.add child
The details of the inference algorithm are currently undocumented.
Rewrite rules
Note: There are two different allowed implementation strategies:
- The produced
finally
section can be a single section that is wrapped around the complete routine body. - The produced
finally
section is wrapped around the enclosing scope.
The current implementation follows strategy (2). This means that resources are destroyed at the scope exit.
var x: T; stmts --------------- (destroy-var) var x: T; try stmts finally: `=destroy`(x) g(f(...)) ------------------------ (nested-function-call) g(let tmp; bitwiseCopy tmp, f(...); tmp) finally: `=destroy`(tmp) x = f(...) ------------------------ (function-sink) `=sink`(x, f(...)) x = lastReadOf z ------------------ (move-optimization) `=sink`(x, z) wasMoved(z) v = v ------------------ (self-assignment-removal) discard "nop" x = y ------------------ (copy) `=copy`(x, y) f_sink(g()) ----------------------- (call-to-sink) f_sink(g()) f_sink(notLastReadOf y) -------------------------- (copy-to-sink) (let tmp; `=copy`(tmp, y); f_sink(tmp)) f_sink(lastReadOf y) ----------------------- (move-to-sink) f_sink(y) wasMoved(y)
Object and array construction
Object and array construction is treated as a function call where the function has sink
parameters.
Destructor removal
wasMoved(x);
followed by a =destroy(x)
operation cancel each other out. An implementation is encouraged to exploit this in order to improve efficiency and code sizes. The current implementation does perform this optimization.
Self assignments
=sink
in combination with wasMoved
can handle self-assignments but it's subtle.
The simple case of x = x
cannot be turned into =sink(x, x); wasMoved(x)
because that would lose x
's value. The solution is that simple self-assignments are simply transformed into an empty statement that does nothing.
The complex case looks like a variant of x = f(x)
, we consider x = select(rand() < 0.5, x, y)
here:
proc select(cond: bool; a, b: sink string): string = if cond: result = a # moves a into result else: result = b # moves b into result proc main = var x = "abc" var y = "xyz" # possible self-assignment: x = select(true, x, y)
Is transformed into:
proc select(cond: bool; a, b: sink string): string = try: if cond: `=sink`(result, a) wasMoved(a) else: `=sink`(result, b) wasMoved(b) finally: `=destroy`(b) `=destroy`(a) proc main = var x: string y: string try: `=sink`(x, "abc") `=sink`(y, "xyz") `=sink`(x, select(true, let blitTmp = x wasMoved(x) blitTmp, let blitTmp = y wasMoved(y) blitTmp)) echo [x] finally: `=destroy`(y) `=destroy`(x)
As can be manually verified, this transformation is correct for self-assignments.
Lent type
proc p(x: sink T)
means that the proc p
takes ownership of x
. To eliminate even more creation/copy <-> destruction pairs, a proc's return type can be annotated as lent T
. This is useful for "getter" accessors that seek to allow an immutable view into a container.
The sink
and lent
annotations allow us to remove most (if not all) superfluous copies and destructions.
lent T
is like var T
a hidden pointer. It is proven by the compiler that the pointer does not outlive its origin. No destructor call is injected for expressions of type lent T
or of type var T
.
type Tree = object kids: seq[Tree] proc construct(kids: sink seq[Tree]): Tree = result = Tree(kids: kids) # converted into: `=sink`(result.kids, kids); wasMoved(kids) `=destroy`(kids) proc `[]`*(x: Tree; i: int): lent Tree = result = x.kids[i] # borrows from 'x', this is transformed into: result = addr x.kids[i] # This means 'lent' is like 'var T' a hidden pointer. # Unlike 'var' this hidden pointer cannot be used to mutate the object. iterator children*(t: Tree): lent Tree = for x in t.kids: yield x proc main = # everything turned into moves: let t = construct(@[construct(@[]), construct(@[])]) echo t[0] # accessor does not copy the element!
The .cursor annotation
Under the --gc:arc|orc
modes Nim's ref
type is implemented via the same runtime "hooks" and thus via reference counting. This means that cyclic structures cannot be freed immediately (--gc:orc
ships with a cycle collector). With the .cursor
annotation one can break up cycles declaratively:
type Node = ref object left: Node # owning ref right {.cursor.}: Node # non-owning ref
But please notice that this is not C++'s weak_ptr, it means the right field is not involved in the reference counting, it is a raw pointer without runtime checks.
Automatic reference counting also has the disadvantage that it introduces overhead when iterating over linked structures. The .cursor
annotation can also be used to avoid this overhead:
var it {.cursor.} = listRoot while it != nil: use(it) it = it.next
In fact, .cursor
more generally prevents object construction/destruction pairs and so can also be useful in other contexts. The alternative solution would be to use raw pointers (ptr
) instead which is more cumbersome and also more dangerous for Nim's evolution: Later on, the compiler can try to prove .cursor
annotations to be safe, but for ptr
the compiler has to remain silent about possible problems.
Cursor inference / copy elision
The current implementation also performs .cursor
inference. Cursor inference is a form of copy elision.
To see how and when we can do that, think about this question: In dest = src
when do we really have to materialize the full copy? - Only if dest
or src
are mutated afterward. If dest
is a local variable that is simple to analyze. And if src
is a location derived from a formal parameter, we also know it is not mutated! In other words, we do a compile-time copy-on-write analysis.
This means that "borrowed" views can be written naturally and without explicit pointer indirections:
proc main(tab: Table[string, string]) = let v = tab["key"] # inferred as .cursor because 'tab' is not mutated. # no copy into 'v', no destruction of 'v'. use(v) useItAgain(v)
Hook lifting
The hooks of a tuple type (A, B, ...)
are generated by lifting the hooks of the involved types A
, B
, ... to the tuple type. In other words, a copy x = y
is implemented as x[0] = y[0]; x[1] = y[1]; ...
, likewise for =sink
and =destroy
.
Other value-based compound types like object
and array
are handled correspondingly. For object
however, the compiler-generated hooks can be overridden. This can also be important to use an alternative traversal of the involved data structure that is more efficient or in order to avoid deep recursions.
Hook generation
The ability to override a hook leads to a phase ordering problem:
type Foo[T] = object proc main = var f: Foo[int] # error: destructor for 'f' called here before # it was seen in this module. proc `=destroy`[T](f: var Foo[T]) = discard
The solution is to define proc `=destroy`[T](f: var Foo[T])
before it is used. The compiler generates implicit hooks for all types in strategic places so that an explicitly provided hook that comes too "late" can be detected reliably. These strategic places have been derived from the rewrite rules and are as follows:
- In the construct
let/var x = ...
(var/let binding) hooks are generated fortypeof(x)
. - In
x = ...
(assignment) hooks are generated fortypeof(x)
. - In
f(...)
(function call) hooks are generated fortypeof(f(...))
. - For every sink parameter
x: sink T
the hooks are generated fortypeof(x)
.
nodestroy pragma
The experimental nodestroy pragma inhibits hook injections. This can be used to specialize the object traversal in order to avoid deep recursions:
type Node = ref object x, y: int32 left, right: Node type Tree = object root: Node proc `=destroy`(t: var Tree) {.nodestroy.} = # use an explicit stack so that we do not get stack overflows: var s: seq[Node] = @[t.root] while s.len > 0: let x = s.pop if x.left != nil: s.add(x.left) if x.right != nil: s.add(x.right) # free the memory explicit: dispose(x) # notice how even the destructor for 's' is not called implicitly # anymore thanks to .nodestroy, so we have to call it on our own: `=destroy`(s)
As can be seen from the example, this solution is hardly sufficient and should eventually be replaced by a better solution.
© 2006–2021 Andreas Rumpf
Licensed under the MIT License.
https://nim-lang.org/docs/destructors.html