Cheap ForeignPtr allocation
simonmar at microsoft.com
Wed Sep 4 05:12:48 EDT 2002
> > Hi Folks, I'd like to propose two new functions for the ForeignPtr
> > interface:
> I'm a bit uneasy about this.
> It seems like decisions made on technological grounds (i.e., because
> they enable an optimization) tend to date rather quickly because the
> technology tends to change too.
Hmm, I see your point. Nevertheless, I think even without the tricks
I'm using in GHC, the case where a ForeignPtr is used in conjunction
with malloc()/free() is one which is likely to be optimisable in any
system with its own memory management.
> The functions may cover a fairly common case of using ForeignPtrs
> (though I've never used ForeignObjs or MallocPtrs that way) - but most
> code doesn't use ForeignPtrs so it's a common case of an uncommon
Ok, I'll give some more motivation. I've been converting over some old
FFI code, namely GHC's POSIX library. This was written back in the old
days before the FFI, and uses lots of GHC extensions. One such
extension, which doesn't have an equivalent in the FFI, is to use
ByteArrays as garbage-collected chunks of memory which can be passed to
The example I'm looking at right now is the SignalSet type in the POSIX
library: a SignalSet is a pure value, and there are operations to create
new empty/full sets, and create new sets by adding/deleting elements
from existing sets. All these operations are pure and work outside the
emptySignalSet :: SignalSet
fullSignalSet :: SignalSet
addSignal :: Signal -> SignalSet -> SignalSet
deleteSignal :: Signal -> SignalSet -> SignalSet
inSignalSet :: Signal -> SignalSet -> Bool
However, inside a SignalSet is a real sigset_t which can be passed to
the C functions which operate on it. An ideal opportunity for a
ForeignPtr, one might think: but using a ForeignPtr here, with free() as
its finalizer, adds so much overhead that it would be better to go back
to manipulating SignalSets in the IO monad (perhaps this isn't such a
good example, it's unlikely that someone is going to be doing a lot of
SignalSet mangling, but anyway).
Another possibility is to fully marshal the sigset_t into Haskell. The
marshalling would be quite expensive, but if there was a lot of
manipulation of the SignalSet going on in Haskell land then this might
be a good choice. This is a well-known tradeoff; and sometimes it isn't
possible to do the marshalling because the C type is abstract.
The main point is that having a cheap way to use ForeignPtr with
malloc()/free() makes it much more likely that we'll settle on a nice
pure interface in this case, because the overhead for doing so is
> I'm inclined to say: add it to GHC for now and prod us again once a
> decent body of examples builds up.
Well, I'll do this if I have to, but I don't really want to make my FFI
More information about the FFI