Archive for November, 2009

Go Interface Values

While interface values in Go are flexible, they do have confusing aspects.

An interface value—e.g., a variable of an interface type— holds a value of some other type. The interface type is known as the static type, since that is the type that the compiler sees at compile type. The other type, which is only visible at runtime, is known as the dynamic type. The dynamic type is, by definition, never an interface type; it can be any other sort of type, though.

When you copy an interface value, via assignment or a function call, you are making a copy of the value of the dynamic type. This is how most types work in general. However, a very common case of using an interface is to have the dynamic type be a pointer type. In that case, when you copy the interface, you copy the pointer, but you of course do not copy the value to which the pointer points. In many cases, the methods of a type will take a receiver of pointer type; this is required if the methods are going to change the value itself. When that happens for a method which the interface requires, then the interface actually requires that the dynamic type be a pointer type.

What this means is that although interfaces are technically always copied as a value, in actual use they often behave as though they are copied by reference. That is, although there is no explicit marker, interface objects often act like pointers. This can be confusing until you understand what is really going on.

In my last post I mentioned that for gccgo, an interface value always holds a pointer to the value stored in the interface. Now I’m going to correct that: if a program stores a pointer (or a value of the type unsafe.Pointer) in an interface, then the value stored in the interface is the pointer itself. That is, gccgo does not store a pointer to the pointer (which would require allocating heap space to hold the pointer). This is a natural efficiency hack, since in practice most interface objects hold pointers.

This efficiency hack carries through to the implementation of methods. Methods are implemented to always accept a pointer as the receiver parameter. If the receiver type of the method is actually not a pointer, then the pointer is implicitly dereferenced, and the value copied, at the start of the method’s code. This means that when calling a method on an interface, the value stored in the interface can be passed directly to the method, regardless of whether the dynamic type is a pointer or not. (As with the last post, the gc compiler does things somewhat differently.)

Comments (2)

Go Interfaces

One of the interesting aspects of the Go language is interface objects. In Go, the word interface is overloaded to mean several different things.

Every type has an interface, which is the set of methods defined for that type. This bit of code defines a struct type S with one field, and defines two methods for S.

type S struct { i int }
func (p *S) Get() int { return p.i }
func (p *S) Put(v int) { p.i = v }

You can also define an interface type, which is simply a set of methods. This defines an interface I with two methods:

type I interface {
  Get() int;

S is a valid implementation for I, because it defines the two methods which I requires. Note that this is true even though there is no explicit declaration that S implements I. A Go program can use this fact via yet another meaning of interface, which is an interface value:

func f(p I) { fmt.Println(p.Get()); p.Put(1) }

Here the variable p holds a value of interface type. Because S implements I, we can call f passing in a pointer to a value of type S:

var s S; f(&s)

The reason we need to take the address of S, rather than a value of type S, is because we defined the methods on S to operate on pointers. This is not a requirement—we could have defined the methods to take values—but then the Put method would not work as expected.

The fact that you do not need to declare whether a type implements an interface means that Go implements a form of duck typing. This is not pure duck typing, because when possible the Go compiler will statically check whether the type implements the interface. However, Go does have a purely dynamic aspect, in that you can convert from one interface type to another. In the general case, that conversion is checked at runtime. If the conversion is invalid—if the type of the value stored in the existing interface value does not satisfy the interface to which it is being converted—the program will fail with a runtime error.

For example, since every type satisfies the empty interface interface {}:

func g(i interface{}) int { return i.(I).Get() }
func h() {
  var s S;
  fmt.Println(g(s)); // will fail at runtime

The first call to g will work fine and will print 0. The second call will fail at runtime; when using gccgo, the program will print

panic: interface conversion failed: no 'Get' method

This is because, as discussed above, a value of type S rather than *S does not have any methods.

So, how does this work? I will describe the current gccgo implementation. The implementation used in the 6g/8g compiler is generally similar but is different in important respects.

For every type which is converted to an interface type, gccgo will build a type descriptor. Type descriptors are used by the type reflection support in the reflect package, and they are also used by the internal runtime support. Type descriptors are defined in the file libgo/runtime/go-type.h in the source code. The relevant part here is that for each type they define a (possibly empty) list of methods. For each method five pieces of information are stored: a hash code for the type of the method (i.e., the parameter and result types); the name of the method; for a method which is not exported, the name of the package in which it is defined; the type descriptor for the type of the method; a pointer to the function which implements the method.

In gccgo, an interface value is really a struct with three fields (libgo/runtime/interface.h): a pointer to the type descriptor for the type of the value currently stored in the interface value; a pointer to a table of functions implementing the methods for the current value; a pointer to the current value itself.

The table of functions is stored sorted by the name of the method, although the name does not appear in the table. Calling a method on an interface means calling a specific entry in this table, where the entry to call is known at compile time. Thus the table of functions is essentially the same as a C++ virtual function table, and calling a method on an interface requires the same series of steps as calling a C++ virtual function: load the address of the virtual table, load a specific entry in the table, and call it.

When a value is statically converted to an interface type, the gccgo compiler will build the table of methods required for that value and that interface type. This table is specific to the pair of types involved. gccgo will give this table comdat linkage, so that it is only built once for each pair of types in a program. Thus a static conversion to an interface simply requires loading the three fields of the interface struct with values known at compile time.

A dynamic conversion from one interface type to another is more complex. Of the three fields in an interface value, the type descriptor and the pointer to the real value can simply be copied to the new interface value. However, the table of methods must be built at runtime. This is done by looking at the list of methods defined in the value’s type descriptors and the list of methods defined in the type descriptor for the interface type itself. Both lists are sorted by the name of the method. The runtime code (libgo/runtime/go-convert-interface.c) merges the two sorted lists to produce the method table. The merging is done using the name of the method and the type hash code. If the interface requires a method which the type does not provide, the conversion fails.

Interfaces in Go are similar to ideas in several other programming languages: pure abstract virtual base classes in C++; typeclasses in Haskell; duck typing in Python; etc. That said, I’m not aware of any other language which combines interface values, static type checking, dynamic runtime conversion, and no requirement for explicitly declaring that a type satisfies an interface. The result in Go is powerful, flexible, efficient, and easy to write.

Comments (5)

Go Channels

Since the first thing I liked about Go is channels, I’ll talk some more about them.

IA channel can transmit a value of a specific type. That is, a channel value of type chan T can transmit any value of type T. This is not much of a restriction, as the type interface {} can be used to match any value at all.

There are two different kinds of channels: buffered and unbuffered. Unbuffered ones are the default. An unbuffered channel provides synchronous transmission of a value from a sender to a receiver. This means that if you try to send a value on the channel, and nothing is receiving from the channel, then you will block until there is a receiver. Similarly, if you try to receive and nothing is sending, you will block until there is a sender (which is pretty obvious). In other words, an unbuffered channel serves as a synchronization point between two goroutines. This is the key point of the Go memory model, which more or less amounts to saying that if you receive a value on a channel, then you will see all the writes made by the sender of the channel.

Buffered channels are more straightforward: if you write a value to the channel, it simply goes into the buffer. If there isn’t room, you want until there is room.

Implementing the above is fairly straightforward. However, there is another aspect to channels in Go: the select statement. The select statement permits a program to wait until some operation on a channel can proceed. It can list an arbitrary number of channels to wait for, and for each channel it can indicate whether it wants to wait to send a value or to receive a value. Implementing this efficiently is at the heart of the goroutine scheduling mechanism. For example, one interesting case is when one goroutine is selecting to write to an unbuffered channel while another goroutine is selecting to read from the channel. The scheduler must get both goroutines to synch up and transmit the value.

In gccgo I currently use a thread for each goroutine, although this will have to change at some point. In order to implement select, each unbuffered channel has a linked list of select statements that are waiting for the channel to be available. When a new select statement comes along such that a send and a receive are linked, and the new select statements picks that operation to run, it has to wake up the other select such that it is forced to use the new channel. This can fail due to race conditions if there is a third select statement involved, in which case the first select has to restart. This was all a huge headache to get working, and I completely rewrote all the select code three times.



I heard about the Go programming language in May 2008 and was immediately interested. I spent a couple of weeks writing a preliminary gcc frontend for Go. I’ve been working on it ever since, with just a few interruptions here and there. It’s a relief that this work is finally out there.

Both the language and the frontend are still explicitly experimental. So I was quite surprised by how much reaction it got. I was expecting just a few people to actually try it. Instead, I’ve basically spent all my time since Tuesday responding to comments on IRC and on the public mailing list.

Anyhow, what attracted me to the language is something I’ve written about in the past, namely multicore programming. Go provides cheap threads built into the language (they’re called goroutines) and it provides cheap communication between the threads, via channels. I won’t describe them in detail in this post, but I think that making these the easy mechanisms for multi-core, as opposed to making locks easy, greatly encourages correctness.

Go has a simple philosophy for multicore, which is “Do not communicate by sharing memory; instead, share memory by communicating.” What this means is that when you want two threads to share some data structure, you should do it by using explicit communication between the threads handing off ownership. You should not do it by having them both modify shared memory. Of course this only works if they have some way to communicate, which is what Go provides via channels. The point is that communication can be used to make it clear who is free to modify the data structure, and strict adherence to this approach eliminates race conditions.

It’s far too early to tell whether Go will catch on, but I certainly hope that even if it doesn’t, the basic ideas in the language will become part of programming’s standard tools for multicore.

There is of course more to the language than multicore, and I plan to write a few more notes about it as a I find time between mailing list replies.

Comments (7)


Insurance works if

  1. You have a sufficiently large population of people at risk of some loss.
    • Otherwise, the insurance company can’t get started, since it can’t earn enough in fees to pay off the loss when it happens.
  2. The loss is large enough that most people are unable or unwilling to take a chance on having it happen to them.
    • Otherwise, most people simply self-insure. E.g., most people do not buy insurance for their bikes, because they can afford to buy a new bike if necessary.
  3. The loss occurs unpredictably.
    • Otherwise, the only people who buy insurance will be those who are likely to suffer the loss, and so the insurance company is forced to charge fees commensurate with the loss, violating clause 2.
  4. The loss occurs to a sufficiently small percentage of the population.
    • Otherwise, the insurance company again must charge fees commensurate with the loss.

Health care meets conditions 1 and 2, but fails to meet conditions 3 and 4. As people get old, they predictably require health care. As people get old, they all require health care. Therefore, health case is not amenable to an insurance solution.

There is an aspect of health care which is amenable to health insurance: young and healthy people are unlikely to require much health care, but they are vulnerable to catastrophic events (in the U.S., typically a car crash or similar major accident). Therefore, there is a valid insurance market in providing catastrophic health coverage for the young and healthy. This would cover all health care charges after some large deductible.

However, using “health insurance” to cover routine care, and using it to provide coverage for people who are old and/or sick, simply isn’t insurance. What we call health insurance is in effect a tax on the young and healthy to provide health care to the old and sick. However, it is a very inefficient tax because it is collected by private for-profit companies which have a strong incentive to increase premiums and reduce payouts, and which in turn requires regulation which is paid for directly by taxes. And, of course, it leads to massive social inequity in that sensible preventative health care—i.e., routine doctor and dentist visits—is simply not available for poor people.

There is a role for private enterprise in health care, of course. There is nothing wrong with having private doctors and private hospitals. But private “health insurance” companies really makes no sense.

As an aside, pregnancy raises another set of predictable costs not amenable to an insurance solution.

This argument seems perfectly straightforward to me. The U.S. only uses private health insurance due to a historical accident: wage freezes in World War II led employers to pay for health care as a benefit to attract workers. Why are so many in the U.S. fixated on continuing a scheme which almost by definition can not work?

The bill which recently passed in the house addresses clause 3 above by simply requiring everybody to purchase health insurance. But it does not address clause 4. Since nearly everybody eventually requires substantial amounts of health care, health insurance premiums must be high, or people must find some other way to pay for their health care. That “other way” winds up being Medicare, which is funded by taxes. So how does health insurance help?

And then there is Medicaid. As long as we are not willing to let people simply die in the streets, poor people without health insurance will get their health care from emergency rooms, where it is vastly more expensive. We all pay for that through our taxes. Getting rid of the tax imposed by private health insurance companies, and paying directly for routine medical care for the poor, will actually reduce our overall tax burden.

If we could strike the word “insurance” from all discussion of health care in the U.S., I think our long-term health care needs would be much better met. Unfortunately, the health insurance lobby is large and powerful.

Comments (9)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »