Given the title of this post, you may assume that it’s about compiler messages. But consider that the compiler is completely silent until it is displeased by something, upon which it will explain its displeasure in great detail, and simply repeat verbatim if asked for clarification. Personally, this is not how I talk to my friends.
Instead this post is about how Futhark programs exchange data with other programs. More specifically, we’ll look at a particular corner of the C API, based on some extensions we recently made.
First the basics: Futhark is a purely functional programming language. It does not have side effects, meaning that programs can’t actually do anything. They have to be passed values from some outside world (say, the one we live in), and can return some new value. In practice this means they are always used as a sub-component of a larger program. How data is passed in and out of the Futhark world is quite crucial.
When a Futhark program is compiled, it turns into a C program along a header file that describes an API for calling the program. (It can also be compiled to Python, but let’s not go there today.) This is not because C is a wonderful application language that is desperately in need of a way to write high performance code, but because C is a useful least common denominator for APIs. Almost all languages can call C functions, which makes C APIs very accessible - and they can always be given language-specific idiomatic wrappers (such as genfut for Rust or futhask for Haskell).
While Futhark’s C API can be used manually in a C program, it is
specifically designed to be easy to use through FFIs. For example,
all the types it uses are either either builtins of known size
int64_t), or pointers to opaque structs with hidden
definitions. This means that other languages don’t have to figure out
the sizes of C structs in order to allocate memory.
Let’s look at some of the implications. A Futhark function that wants
to be callable from the outside world is called an entry point and
entry f (x: i32) (y: i32) = x + y
Every entry point turns into a corresponding C function. In this case, it will have this prototype:
int futhark_entry_f(struct futhark_context *ctx, int32_t *out0, const int32_t in0, const int32_t in1);
Pretty straightforward. The
futhark_context struct contains various
internal state and bookkeeping information. It’s not particularly
relevant for what we’ll look at, so just ignore it. The return value
of the function is an error code, as is C tradition. The actual
result of the Futhark function is written to the object pointed to by
The above is a Futhark function that takes two parameters. Now consider if we wrote it like this instead:
entry f (x: i32, y: i32) = x + y
This is a function that takes a single parameter that just happens to be a tuple. How do generate an equivalent C prototype? The problem is that C has no built-in tuple type, so it’s not obvious what type the parameter should have. The Futhark compiler will invent a new struct type (without exposing its definition!) and use that:
int futhark_entry_f(struct futhark_context *ctx, int32_t *out0, const struct futhark_opaque_6c224689 *in0);
Some may feel that
futhark_opaque_6c224689 is not a great name for
the C type representing
(i32,i32). And it probably isn’t, as it’s a
crude hash of the real name, as C doesn’t allow parentheses and other
interesting characters in type names. The struct is opaque because we
want to be at liberty to change the value
without breaking API compatibility. I don’t know how many people are
aware that in C you can declare a struct without defining its
fields, and then freely use pointers to it. It’s a handy technique
for decoupled data hiding, although at the cost of needing more heap
If we want a better name, we can use a type abbreviation to come up with a C-compatible name, and then use it as a type ascription on the parameter:
type pair = (i32, i32) entry f ((x,y): pair) = x + y
This results in this C function:
int futhark_entry_f(struct futhark_context *ctx, int32_t *out0, const struct futhark_opaque_pair *in0);
The general idea is that we inspect the user-provided type ascriptions in order to figure out what to call things at the C level. This can lead to some strange behaviour, as while Futhark is structurally typed, C is nominally typed. We may end up in a situation where we create different (and thus incompatible) C types representing the same Futhark type. For example:
type foo = (i32, i32) type bar = (i32, i32) entry f (x: foo) (y: bar) = x.0 + x.1 + y.0 + y.1
Leading to this C prototype:
int futhark_entry_f(struct futhark_context *ctx, int32_t *out0, const struct futhark_opaque_foo *in0, const struct futhark_opaque_bar *in1);
The workaround is don’t do that in the first place. But perhaps we should have provided dedicated syntax for spelling out the desired C-level interface for entry points, rather than defining subtle rules based on normally semantics-less type ascriptions.
One example of unintuitive behaviour is that using type abbreviations only has an effect in cases where the real underlying type does not have a standard representation in C. For example:
type foo = i32 type bar = i32 entry f (x: foo) : bar = x
Which produces this C:
int futhark_entry_f(struct futhark_context *ctx, int32_t *out0, const int32_t in0);
It is always possible to make an opaque variant of a type just by wrapping it in a record or sum-type constructor. Still, I think this inconsistency is a design wart. Unfortunately the C API is one of the few parts of Futhark that we try hard to keep stable over long periods of time, so I don’t think this will change.
As mentioned before, an important aspect of the design has been making
sure that we do not expose more detail to C than necessary, as we want
the freedom to change object representations transparently. This also
goes for arrays. An array of Futhark type
f32 becomes a pointer
to a C struct of type
futhark_f32_1d. However, while we don’t want
to reveal anything about what these structs may look like on the
inside (in particular where their contents are physically stored), we
do want the programmer to read their contents into a standard C
int futhark_values_f32_1d(struct futhark_context *ctx, struct futhark_f32_1d *arr, float *data);
Or to construct them from raw C data:
struct futhark_f32_1d *futhark_new_f32_1d(struct futhark_context *ctx, const float *data, int64_t dim0);
There is really nothing fancy going on here. While we keep the specific representation opaque, we don’t mind admitting that arrays semantically consist of a bunch of values, and that we can convert back and forth.
But until recently, we didn’t make any such admissions for tuples and records. If you had a program that accepted a tuple, such as the one from before:
type pair = (i32, i32) entry f ((x,y): pair) = x + y
Then it was on you to also provide other entry points that allow the
construction of a
pair value using transparent C values. For example:
entry mk_pair x y : pair = (x,y)
Giving rise to this C prototype:
int futhark_entry_mk_pair(struct futhark_context *ctx, struct futhark_opaque_pair **out0, const int32_t in0, const int32_t in1);
Similar entry points can be defined for projecting (extracting) the elements of the tuple.
Although certainly an application of the principle of data hiding, this data was perhaps too well hidden. There isn’t really much gain in trying to pretend that tuples are not, well, tuples. It just leads to lots of boilerplate. And worse, it makes it impossible for languages that do have tuples to transparently translate Futhark-level tuples, exposed as opaque C objects, into native tuples. How is it supposed to know which entry points correspond to construction and projection functions?
Therefore, we recently made the Futhark compiler always generate
constructor and projection functions for tuples and records. For the
pair example, the following C functions are available:
int futhark_new_opaque_pair(struct futhark_context *ctx, struct futhark_opaque_pair **out, const int32_t v0, const int32_t v1); int futhark_project_opaque_pair_0(struct futhark_context *ctx, int32_t *out, const struct futhark_opaque_pair *obj); int futhark_project_opaque_pair_1(struct futhark_context *ctx, int32_t *out, const struct futhark_opaque_pair *obj);
These functions cannot do anything that hand-written entry points cannot do, but they are guaranteed to have specific semantics (among others, they are really cheap), which makes them more useful for tooling. They are also listed in the manifest; a machine-readable description of the API provided by a compiled Futhark program. We have already used this facility to fix an issue in literate Futhark that prevented FutharkScript tuples from being passed to Futhark entry points, because we had no idea how to construct the corresponding C object at run-time. Well, now we do.
In Futhark, as in most sensible language, a function returns only a single value. “Multiple return values” are implemented by returning a tuple. Consider this entry point:
entry f (x: i32) (y: i32) = (x+y, x-y)
This returns a value that happens to be a tuple. It turns into a C function with this prototype:
int futhark_entry_f(struct futhark_context *ctx, int32_t *out0, int32_t *out1, const int32_t in0, const int32_t in1);
The tuple is gone, but instead we have two output parameters! The Futhark compiler uses the simple rule that if the return value of a function is a tuple, then that is turned into multiple return values. This was a convenience we added long ago so that you wouldn’t have to write your own projection functions all the time. Now that the compiler has been taught how to automatically generate those functions, this convenience is more of an ugly inconsistency. Unfortunately, in order to remain backwards compatible we have to keep it around.