In Go there are various ways to return a struct value or slice thereof. For individual ones I've seen:
type MyStruct struct {
Val int
}
func myfunc() MyStruct {
return MyStruct{Val: 1}
}
func myfunc() *MyStruct {
return &MyStruct{}
}
func myfunc(s *MyStruct) {
s.Val = 1
}
I understand the differences between these. The first returns a copy of the struct, the second a pointer to the struct value created within the function, the third expects an existing struct to be passed in and overrides the value.
I've seen all of these patterns be used in various contexts, I'm wondering what the best practices are regarding these. When would you use which? For instance, the first one could be ok for small structs (because the overhead is minimal), the second for bigger ones. And the third if you want to be extremely memory efficient, because you can easily reuse a single struct instance between calls. Are there any best practices for when to use which?
Similarly, the same question regarding slices:
func myfunc() []MyStruct {
return []MyStruct{ MyStruct{Val: 1} }
}
func myfunc() []*MyStruct {
return []MyStruct{ &MyStruct{Val: 1} }
}
func myfunc(s *[]MyStruct) {
*s = []MyStruct{ MyStruct{Val: 1} }
}
func myfunc(s *[]*MyStruct) {
*s = []MyStruct{ &MyStruct{Val: 1} }
}
Again: what are best practices here. I know slices are always pointers, so returning a pointer to a slice isn't useful. However, should I return a slice of struct values, a slice of pointers to structs, should I pass in a pointer to a slice as argument (a pattern used in the Go App Engine API)?
tl;dr:
Methods using receiver pointers are common; the rule of thumb for receivers is, "If in doubt, use a pointer."
Slices, maps, channels, strings, function values, and interface values are implemented with pointers internally, and a pointer to them is often redundant.
Elsewhere, use pointers for big structs or structs you'll have to change, and otherwise pass values, because getting things changed by surprise via a pointer is confusing.
One case where you should often use a pointer:
Receivers are pointers more often than other arguments. It's not unusual for methods to modify the thing they're called on, or for named types to be large structs, so the guidance is to default to pointers except in rare cases.
Jeff Hodges' copyfighter tool automatically searches for non-tiny receivers passed by value.
Some situations where you don't need pointers:
Code review guidelines suggest passing small structs like type Point struct { latitude, longitude float64 }, and maybe even things a bit bigger, as values, unless the function you're calling needs to be able to modify them in place.
Value semantics avoid aliasing situations where an assignment over here changes a value over there by surprise.
Passing small structs by value can be more efficient by avoiding cache misses or heap allocations. In any case, when pointers and values perform similarly, the Go-y approach is to choose whatever provides the more natural semantics rather than squeeze out every last bit of speed.
So, Go Wiki's code review comments page suggests passing by value when structs are small and likely to stay that way.
If the "large" cutoff seems vague, it is; arguably many structs are in a range where either a pointer or a value is OK. As a lower bound, the code review comments suggest slices (three machine words) are reasonable to use as value receivers. As something nearer an upper bound, bytes.Replace takes 10 words' worth of args (three slices and an int). You can find situations where copying even large structs turns out a performance win, but the rule of thumb is not to.
For slices, you don't need to pass a pointer to change elements of the array. io.Reader.Read(p []byte) changes the bytes of p, for instance. It's arguably a special case of "treat little structs like values," since internally you're passing around a little structure called a slice header (see Russ Cox (rsc)'s explanation). Similarly, you don't need a pointer to modify a map or communicate on a channel.
For slices you'll reslice (change the start/length/capacity of), built-in functions like append accept a slice value and return a new one. I'd imitate that; it avoids aliasing, returning a new slice helps call attention to the fact that a new array might be allocated, and it's familiar to callers.
It's not always practical follow that pattern. Some tools like database interfaces or serializers need to append to a slice whose type isn't known at compile time. They sometimes accept a pointer to a slice in an interface{} parameter.
Maps, channels, strings, and function and interface values, like slices, are internally references or structures that contain references already, so if you're just trying to avoid getting the underlying data copied, you don't need to pass pointers to them. (rsc wrote a separate post on how interface values are stored).
You still may need to pass pointers in the rarer case that you want to modify the caller's struct: flag.StringVar takes a *string for that reason, for example.
Where you use pointers:
Consider whether your function should be a method on whichever struct you need a pointer to. People expect a lot of methods on x to modify x, so making the modified struct the receiver may help to minimize surprise. There are guidelines on when receivers should be pointers.
Functions that have effects on their non-receiver params should make that clear in the godoc, or better yet, the godoc and the name (like reader.WriteTo(writer)).
You mention accepting a pointer to avoid allocations by allowing reuse; changing APIs for the sake of memory reuse is an optimization I'd delay until it's clear the allocations have a nontrivial cost, and then I'd look for a way that doesn't force the trickier API on all users:
For avoiding allocations, Go's escape analysis is your friend. You can sometimes help it avoid heap allocations by making types that can be initialized with a trivial constructor, a plain literal, or a useful zero value like bytes.Buffer.
Consider a Reset() method to put an object back in a blank state, like some stdlib types offer. Users who don't care or can't save an allocation don't have to call it.
Consider writing modify-in-place methods and create-from-scratch functions as matching pairs, for convenience: existingUser.LoadFromJSON(json []byte) error could be wrapped by NewUserFromJSON(json []byte) (*User, error). Again, it pushes the choice between laziness and pinching allocations to the individual caller.
Callers seeking to recycle memory can let sync.Pool handle some details. If a particular allocation creates a lot of memory pressure, you're confident you know when the alloc is no longer used, and you don't have a better optimization available, sync.Pool can help. (CloudFlare published a useful (pre-sync.Pool) blog post about recycling.)
Finally, on whether your slices should be of pointers: slices of values can be useful, and save you allocations and cache misses. There can be blockers:
The API to create your items might force pointers on you, e.g. you have to call NewFoo() *Foo rather than let Go initialize with the zero value.
The desired lifetimes of the items might not all be the same. The whole slice is freed at once; if 99% of the items are no longer useful but you have pointers to the other 1%, all of the array remains allocated.
Copying or moving the values might cause you performance or correctness problems, making pointers more attractive. Notably, append copies items when it grows the underlying array. Pointers to slice items from before the append may not point to where the item was copied after, copying can be slower for huge structs, and for e.g. sync.Mutex copying isn't allowed. Insert/delete in the middle and sorting also move items around so similar considerations can apply.
Broadly, value slices can make sense if either you get all of your items in place up front and don't move them (e.g., no more appends after initial setup), or if you do keep moving them around but you're confident that's OK (no/careful use of pointers to items, and items are small or you've measured the perf impact). Sometimes it comes down to something more specific to your situation, but that's a rough guide.
If you can (e.g. a non-shared resource that does not need to be passed as reference), use a value. By the following reasons:
Your code will be nicer and more readable, avoiding pointer operators and null checks.
Your code will be safer against Null Pointer panics.
Your code will be often faster: yes, faster! Why?
Reason 1: you will allocate less items in the heap. Allocating/deallocating from stack is immediate, but allocating/deallocating on Heap may be very expensive (allocation time + garbage collection). You can see some basic numbers here: http://www.macias.info/entry/201802102230_go_values_vs_references.md
Reason 2: especially if you store returned values in slices, your memory objects will be more compacted in memory: looping a slice where all the items are contiguous is much faster than iterating a slice where all the items are pointers to other parts of the memory. Not for the indirection step but for the increase of cache misses.
Myth breaker: a typical x86 cache line are 64 bytes. Most structs are smaller than that. The time of copying a cache line in memory is similar to copying a pointer.
Only if a critical part of your code is slow I would try some micro-optimization and check if using pointers improves somewhat the speed, at the cost of less readability and mantainability.
Three main reasons when you would want to use method receivers as pointers:
"First, and most important, does the method need to modify the receiver? If it does, the receiver must be a pointer."
"Second is the consideration of efficiency. If the receiver is large, a big struct for instance, it will be much cheaper to use a pointer receiver."
"Next is consistency. If some of the methods of the type must have pointer receivers, the rest should too, so the method set is consistent regardless of how the type is used"
Reference : https://golang.org/doc/faq#methods_on_values_or_pointers
Edit : Another important thing is to know the actual "type" that you are sending to function. The type can either be a 'value type' or 'reference type'.
Even as slices and maps acts as references, we might want to pass them as pointers in scenarios like changing the length of the slice in the function.
A case where you generally need to return a pointer is when constructing an instance of some stateful or shareable resource. This is often done by functions prefixed with New.
Because they represent a specific instance of something and they may need to coordinate some activity, it doesn't make a lot of sense to generate duplicated/copied structures representing the same resource -- so the returned pointer acts as the handle to the resource itself.
Some examples:
func NewTLSServer(handler http.Handler) *Server -- instantiate a web server for testing
func Open(name string) (*File, error) -- return a file access handle
In other cases, pointers are returned just because the structure may be too large to copy by default:
func NewRGBA(r Rectangle) *RGBA -- allocate an image in memory
Alternatively, returning pointers directly could be avoided by instead returning a copy of a structure that contains the pointer internally, but maybe this isn't considered idiomatic:
No such examples found in the standard libraries...
Related question: Embedding in Go with pointer or with value
Regarding to struct vs. pointer return value, I got confused after reading many highly stared open source projects on github, as there are many examples for both cases, util I found this amazing article:
https://www.ardanlabs.com/blog/2014/12/using-pointers-in-go.html
"In general, share struct type values with a pointer unless the struct type has been implemented to behave like a primitive data value.
If you are still not sure, this is another way to think about. Think of every struct as having a nature. If the nature of the struct is something that should not be changed, like a time, a color or a coordinate, then implement the struct as a primitive data value. If the nature of the struct is something that can be changed, even if it never is in your program, it is not a primitive data value and should be implemented to be shared with a pointer. Don’t create structs that have a duality of nature."
Completedly convinced.
In Go source I have
type T struct {
// some data
}
func (t *T)M(arg0 SomeType1) {
// some computations
}
var Obj *T
In C sources I have
// SomeType1C is equivalent to SomeType1.
typedef void (*CallbackFunc)(SomeType1C);
// callback will be called !after! register_callback function returns.
void register_callback(CallbackFunc callback);
I would like to use Obj.M as callback for register_callback in C.
On MS Windows for winapi I pass smth like C.CallbackFunc(unsafe.Pointer(syscall.NewCallback(Obj.M))) to register_callback for this (not sure is it fully correct, but at least this works). But where is no NewCallback for non-Windows systems.
PS:
I'm sure that callback is registered after T is initialised and removed before T is removed.
I may have multiple instances of T and some of them may be used to callback's 'source' at same time (so T is not some kind of singltone).
Function pointer callbacks in GoLang's wiki uses gateway function, but I don't see how to adequate use it with struct's method.
Base idea:
Use exported callback as a proxy between C and Go:
//export callback
func callback(data0 SomeType1C, data1 Data){ // data1 - data passed to register_callback_with_data
obj := convertDataToObj(data1)
obj.M(data0)
}
and register it like this:
register_callback_with_data(callback, convertObjToData(obj));
Where are 3 ways: wrong (and easy), limited (medium) and right (hard).
Wrong (and easy) way:
Pass pointer to Go struct into C (as in original answer). This is totally wrong because Go runtime can move struct in memory. Usually this operation is transparent (all Go pointers will be updated automatically). But pointers in C memory to this struct will not be updated and program may crash/UB/... when tries to use it. Do not use this way.
Limited (medium) way:
Similar to previous, but with Go struct allocated in C memory:
Obj = (*T)(C.calloc(C.size_t(unsafe.Sizeof(T{}))))
In this case Obj can not be moved by Go runtime because it is in C memory. But now if Obj has pointers to Go memory (fields with *-variables, maps, slices, channels, function-pointers, ...) then this also may cause crash/UB/... This is because:
if there are no (other) Go pointers to the same variable (memory), then Go runtime thinks that this memory is free and can be reused,
or, if there is other Go pointer to same variable (memory), then Go can move this variable in memory.
So, use this way only if struct has no pointers to Go memory. Usually this means that struct contains only primitive fields (ints, floats, bool).
Right (and hard) way:
Assign id (of integer type for example) for each object of type T and pass this id into C. In exported callback you should convert id back to object. This is right way with no limitation, so this way may be used always. But this way requires to maintain some array/slice/map to convert between objects and ids. Moreover, this convertation may require some synchronization for thread-safe (so see sync.Mutex and sync.RWMutex).
Original answer:
Not best answer and has restrictions, but no other suggested. In my case I can pass additional data to register_callback. This data will be passed back to callback on each call. So I pass unsafe.Pointer(Obj) as data and use gateway function:
//export callback
func callback(data SomeType1C, additionalData unsafe.Pointer){
obj := (*T)(additionalData) // Get original Obj (pointer to instance of T)
dataGo := *(*SomeType1)(unsafe.Pointer(&data)) // Cast data from C to Go type
obj.M(dataGo)
}
and register it like this:
register_callback_with_data(callback, unsafe.Pointer(Obj));
PS: but still want to know how to do this better in general case (without additional data).
In Swift 3.0, the code below gives different addresses for thisArray[0], suggesting that the array was deep copied. Is this actually the case, or am I missing something in my analysis? Does if let behave the same way? It may be irrelevant for if let, as it is immutable...
var thisArray: [String]? = ["One", "Two"]
withUnsafePointer(to: &thisArray![0]) {
print("thisArray[0] has address \($0)")
}
if var thisArray = thisArray {
withUnsafePointer(to: &thisArray[0]) {
print("thisArray[0] has address \($0)")
}
}
Relevant: https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=10.
In Swift, Array, String, and Dictionary are all value types.
So, if you assign an existing value type via var or let then a copy occurs. If you assign an existing reference type (such as a class) via var or let then you'll be assigning a reference.
#CharlieS's answer is mostly correct but glosses over some important details...
Semantically, assigning a value type to a different binding (whether a var variable or let constant) always creates a copy. That is, your program code can always safely assume that modifications to one binding of a value type will never affect others.
Or to put it a different way: if you were building your own version of the Swift compiler / runtime / standard library from scratch, you could make every var a = b allocate new memory for a and copy all the memory contents of b, regardless of which value type a and b are. All other things being equal, your implementation would be compatible with all Swift programs.
The downside to value type reassignment always being a copy is that for large types (like collections or composite types), all that copying wastes time and memory. So...
In practice, value types can be implemented in ways that maintain the semantic always-a-copy guarantee of value types while providing performance optimizations like copy-on-write. The Swift Standard Library collection types (arrays, dictionaries, sets, etc) do this, and it's possible for custom value types (including yours) to implement copy-on-write too. (For details on how, this WWDC 2015 talk provides a good overview.)
To make copy-on-write work, an implementing value type needs to use reference types internally (as noted in that WWDC talk). And it has to do it in such a way that the language guarantee for value types — that assignments are always semantically copies — continues to hold in all cases.
One of the ways that a copy-on-write array implementation could fail that guarantee would be to allow unguarded access to its underlying storage buffer — if you can get a raw pointer into that storage, you could mutate the contents in ways that cause other bindings (that is, semantic copies) to mutate, violating the language guarantee.
To preserve the copy-on-write guarantee, the standard library's collection types make sure that copies certain operations that could perform unguarded mutation create copies. (Although even then, sometimes the copies created involve enough reference manipulation that the memory and time costs of the copies remain low up until an actual mutation happens.)
You can see a bit of how this works in the Swift compiler & standard library source code — start from a search for isUniquelyReferenced and follow the callers and callees of is various use cases in ArrayBuffer etc.
For an illustration of what's going on here, let's try a variation on your test:
var thisArray: [String] = ["One", "Two"]
withUnsafePointer(to: &thisArray[0]) {
print("thisArray[0] has address \($0)")
}
var thatArray = thisArray // comment/uncomment here
withUnsafePointer(to: &thisArray[0]) {
print("thisArray[0] has address \($0)")
}
When you comment out the assignment thatArray = thisArray, both addresses are the same. Once thisArray is no longer uniquely referenced, though, accessing even the original array's underlying buffer requires a copy (or at least some internal indirection).
I want to rebind a special variable inside of a loop. Now, normally, this is accomplished using a let.
(let ((*read-eval* nil))
(do-something-here))
But since the loop macro has these nice with clauses, I thought I might be able to do so in there. The expression (macroexpand '(loop with *read-eval* = nil)) ends up expanding the binding to a let, so it will definitely work on my implementation specifically. But I can't find anything in the standard indicating that this is standardized behavior. So, I suppose, my question is this:
(loop with *read-eval* = nil
for i from 1 to 10
do (something-involving-the-read-function))
Are conforming implementations required to modify the existing *read-eval* variable, or is there a risk that they might create a new lexical variable of the same name?
*read-eval* is a global special variable. There is no way to undo that, i.e., create a local lexical binding for it.
with clause is described as using bindings (as opposed to mere setting) which means that, indeed, once the loop is done, we'll be back to the original value (to answer #joshua-tailor's question).
Let us think rationally. (loop with foo = nil ...) definitely does establish a binding for foo. So, for (loop with *read-eval* = nil ...) not to establish that binding, the implementation has to check (at macroexpansion or compile time) whether *read-eval* will be a dynamic variable at run time. This sounds insane.
I work in safety critical application development. Recently as a code reviewer I complained against coding style shown below, but couldn't make a strong case against it. So what would be a good argument against such Variable redundancy/duplication, I am looking for cases where this might lead to problems or test cases which might fail, rather than just coding style.
//global data
// global data
int Block1Var;
int Block2Var;
...
//Block1
{
...
Block1Var = someCondition; // someCondition is an logical expression
...
}
//Block2
{
...
Block2Var = Block1Var; // Block2Var is an unconditional copy of Block1Var
...
}
I think a little more context would be helpful perhaps.
You could argue that the value of Block1Var is not guaranteed to stay the
same across concurrent access/modification. This is only valid if Block1Var
ever changes (ie is not only read). I don't know if you are concerned with
multi-threaded applications or not.
Readability is an important issue as well. Future code maintainers
don't want to have to trace around a bunch of trivial assignments.
Depends on what's done with those variables later, but one argument is that it's not future-proof. If, in the future, you change the code such that it changes the value of Block1Var, but Block2Var is used instead (without the additional change) later on, then this will result in erroneous behavior.
If the shown function context reaches a certain length (I'm assuming a lot of detail has been discarded to create the minimal reproducible example for this question), a good next step could be to create a new (sub-)function out of Block 2. This subfunction then should be started assigning Block1Var (-> actual parameter) to Block2Var (-> formal parameter). If there were no other coupling to the rest of the function, one could cut the rest of Block 2 and drop it as a function definition, and would only have to replace the assignment by the subfunction call.
My answer is fairly speculative, but I have seen many cases where this strategy helped me to mark useful points to split a complex function later during the development. Of course, this interpretation only applies to an intermediate stage of development and not to code that is stated to be "ready for release".