7.6 Assignment and Finalization

Term entry: controlled type — type that supports user-defined assignment and finalization
Note: Objects are always finalized before being destroyed.

Ramification: {AI95-00114-01} {AI95-00287-01} Here's the basic idea of initialization, value adjustment, and finalization, whether or not user defined: When an object is created, if it is explicitly assigned an initial value, the object is either built-in-place from an aggregate or function call (in which case neither Adjust nor Initialize is applied), or the assignment copies and adjusts the initial value. Otherwise, Initialize is applied to it (except in the case of an aggregate as a whole). An assignment_statement finalizes the target before copying in and adjusting the new value. Whenever an object goes away, it is finalized. Calls on Initialize and Adjust happen bottom-up; that is, components first, followed by the containing object. Calls on Finalize happen top-down; that is, first the containing object, and then its components. These ordering rules ensure that any components will be in a well-defined state when Initialize, Adjust, or Finalize is applied to the containing object. 

Reason: {AI12-0241-1} This package must allow blocking (Nonblocking => False) for compatibility. The purpose of this package is to provide a template for overriding user-defined routines; and such routines can only allow blocking if the root type does so. Users can still declare their overridding routines nonblocking if they wish. 

Discussion: We say “nonlimited controlled type” (rather than just “controlled type”;) when we want to talk about descendants of Controlled only. 

Reason: We considered making Adjust and Finalize abstract. However, a reasonable coding convention is e.g. for Finalize to always call the parent's Finalize after doing whatever work is needed for the extension part. (Unlike CLOS, we have no way to do that automatically in Ada 95.) For this to work, Finalize cannot be abstract. In a generic unit, for a generic formal abstract derived type whose ancestor is Controlled or Limited_Controlled, calling the ancestor's Finalize would be illegal if it were abstract, even though the actual type might have a concrete version.

Types Controlled and Limited_Controlled are abstract, even though they have no abstract primitive subprograms. It is not clear that they need to be abstract, but there seems to be no harm in it, and it might make an implementation's life easier to know that there are no objects of these types — in case the implementation wishes to make them “magic” in some way.

{AI95-00251-01} For Ada 2005, we considered making these types interfaces. That would have the advantage of allowing them to be added to existing trees. But that was rejected both because it would cause massive disruptions to existing implementations, and because it would be very incompatible due to the "no hidden interfaces" rule. The latter rule would prevent a tagged private type from being completed with a derivation from Controlled or Limited_Controlled — a very common idiom. 

Ramification: The fact that a type needs finalization does not require it to be implemented with a controlled type. It just has to be recognized by the No_Nested_Finalization restriction.

This property is defined for the type, not for a particular view. That's necessary as restrictions look in private parts to enforce their restrictions; the point is to eliminate all controlled parts, not just ones that are visible. 

Discussion: Example: 

As part of the elaboration of A's declaration, A.Y is assigned a value; therefore Initialize is not applied to A.Y. Instead, Adjust is applied to A.Y as part of the assignment operation. Initialize is applied to A.X and to A, since those objects are not assigned an initial value. The assignment to A.Y is not considered an assignment to A.

For the elaboration of B's declaration, Initialize is not called at all. Instead the assignment adjusts B's value; that is, it applies Adjust to B.X, B.Y, and B.

{8652/0021} {AI95-00182-01} {AI95-00373-01} The ancestor_part of an extension_aggregate, <> in aggregates, and the return object of an extended_return_statement are handled similarly. 

Reason: The fact that Initialize is done for subcomponents first allows Initialize for a composite object to refer to its subcomponents knowing they have been properly initialized.

The fact that Initialize is done for components with access discriminants after other components allows the Initialize operation for a component with a self-referential access discriminant to assume that other components of the enclosing object have already been properly initialized. For multiple such components, it allows some predictability. 

Ramification: If any parts of the object are controlled, abort is deferred during the assignment operation. 

Ramification: {AI05-0067-1} Adjustment is never actually performed for values of an immutably limited type, since all assignment operations for such types are required to be built-in-place. Even so, we still define adjustment for all types in order that the canonical semantics is well-defined. 

Reason: {AI05-0005-1} The verbiage in the Initialize rule about access discriminants constrained by per-object expressions is not necessary here, since such types are either limited or do not have defaults, so the discriminant can only be changed by an assignment to an outer object. Such an assignment could happen only before any adjustments or (if part of an outer Adjust) only after any inner (component) adjustments have completed. 

Reason: An alternative design for user-defined assignment might involve an Assign operation instead of Adjust: 

Or perhaps even a syntax like this: 

Assign (or ":=") would have the responsibility of doing the copy, as well as whatever else is necessary. This would have the advantage that the Assign operation knows about both the target and the source at the same time — it would be possible to do things like reuse storage belonging to the target, for example, which Adjust cannot do. However, this sort of design would not work in the case of unconstrained discriminated variables, because there is no way to change the discriminants individually. For example:

An assignment to an unconstrained variable of type Mutable can cause some of the components of X, and the component Y, to appear and/or disappear. There is no way to write the Assign operation to handle this sort of case.

Forbidding such cases is not an option — it would cause generic contract model violations. 

Discussion: {AI05-0067-1} We say assignment to built-in-place objects does not involve copying, which matches the intended implementation (see below). Of course, the implementation can do any copying it likes, if it can make such copying semantically invisible (by patching up access values to point to the copy, and so forth). 

Reason: {AI05-0067-1} We talk about the full types being immutably limited, as this is independent of the view of a type (in the same way that it is for determining the technique of parameter passing). That is, privacy is ignored for this purpose.

{AI05-0005-1} {AI05-0067-1} For function calls, we only require building in place for immutably limited types. These are the types that would have been return-by-reference types in Ada 95. We limited the requirement because we want to minimize disruption to Ada 95 implementations and users. 

To be honest: {AI05-0232-1} {AI12-0005-1} This is a dynamic property and is determined by the specific type of the parts of the actual object. In particular, if a part has a class-wide type, the tag of the object might need to be examined in order to determine if build-in-place is required. However, we expect that most Ada implementations will determine this property at compile-time using some assume-the-worst algorithm in order to choose the appropriate method to implement a given call or aggregate. In addition, there is no attribute or other method for a program to determine if a particular object has this property (or not), so there is no value to a more careful description of this rule.

Reason: {AI05-0067-1} This is necessary to prevent elaboration problems with deferred constants of controlled types. Consider: 

When Null_String is elaborated, the bodies of Finalize and Adjust clearly have not been elaborated. Without this rule, this declaration would necessarily raise Program_Error (unless the permissions given below are used by the implementation). 

Ramification: An aggregate with a controlled part used in the return expression of a simple_return_statement has to be built in place in the anonymous return object, as this is similar to an object declaration. (This is a change from Ada 95, but it is not an inconsistency as it only serves to restrict implementation choices.) But this only covers the aggregate; a separate anonymous return object can still be used unless it too is required to be built in place.

Similarly, an aggregate that has a controlled part but is not itself controlled and that is used to initialize an object also has to be built in place. This is also a change from Ada 95, but it is not an inconsistency as it only serves to restrict implementation choices. This avoids problems if a type like Dyn_String (in the example above) is used as a component in a type used as a deferred constant in package P. 

Reason: This is left unspecified so the implementation can use any appropriate criteria for determining when to build in place. That includes making the decision on a call-by-call basis. Reasonable programs will not care what decision is made here anyway.

To be honest: {AI12-0005-1} This “mutating” does not necessarily happen atomically with respect to abort and other tasks. For example, if a function call is used as the ancestor part of an extension_aggregate, then the tag of the anonymous object (the function result) will be different from the tag of the newly-created object (the ancestor part of the extension_aggregate). In implementation terms, this involves modifying the tag field. If the current task is aborted during this modification, the object might become abnormal. Likewise, if some other task accesses the tag field during this modification, it constitutes improper use of shared variables, and is erroneous. 

Implementation Note: The intended implementation is that the anonymous object is allocated at the same address as the newly-created object. Thus, no run-time action is required to cause all the access values and renamings to point to the right place. They just point to the newly-created object, which is what the return object has magically “mutated into”.

There is no requirement that 'Address of the return object is equal to 'Address of the newly-created object, but that will be true in the intended implementation.

For a function call, if the size of the newly-created object is known at the call site, the object is allocated there, and the address is implicitly passed to the function; the return object is created at that address. Otherwise, a storage pool is implicitly passed to the function; the size is determined at the point of the return statement, and passed to the Allocate procedure. The address returned by the storage pool is returned from the function, and the newly-created object uses that same address. If the return statement is left without returning (via an exception or a goto, for example), then Deallocate is called. The storage pool might be a dummy pool that represents “allocate on the stack”.

The Tag of the newly-created object may be different from that of the result object. Likewise, the master and accessibility level may be different.

An alternative implementation model might allow objects to move around to different addresses. In this case, access values and renamings would need to be modified at run time. It seems that this model requires the full power of tracing garbage collection. 

This paragraph was deleted.{AI05-0067-1}

Ramification: {AI05-0067-1} {AI12-0005-1} The relaxations apply only to nonlimited types, as assignment_statements are not allowed for limited types. This is important so that the programmer can count on stricter semantics for limited controlled types. 

Ramification: In other words, even if an object is controlled and a combination of Finalize and Adjust on the object might have a net side effect, they need not be performed. 

Reason: For example, in a slice assignment, an anonymous object is not necessary if the slice is copied component-by-component in the right direction, since array types are not controlled (although their components may be). Note that the direction, and even the fact that it's a slice assignment, can in general be determined only at run time. 

Ramification: {AI05-0005-1} This potentially breaks a single assignment operation into many, and thus abort deferral (see 9.8) needs to last only across an individual component assignment when the component has a controlled part. It is only important that the copy step is not separated (by an abort) from the adjust step, so aborts between component assignments is not harmful. 

Ramification: {AI05-0005-1} If the anonymous object is eliminated by this permission, there is no anonymous object to be finalized and thus the Finalize call on it is eliminated.

{AI95-00147-01} {AI05-0005-1} Note that if the anonymous object is eliminated but the new value is not built in place in the target object, that Adjust must be called directly on the target object as the last step of the assignment, since some of the subcomponents may be self-referential or otherwise position-dependent. This Adjust can be eliminated only by using one of the following permissions.

To be honest: This does not apply to any calls to a user-defined Initialize routine that happen to occur in an Adjust or Finalize routine. It is intended that it is never necessary to look inside of an Adjust or Finalize routine to determine if the call can be omitted. 

Reason: We don't want to eliminate objects for which the Initialize might have side effects (such as locking a resource).

Reason: The goal of the above permissions is to allow typical dead assignment and dead variable removal algorithms to work for nonlimited controlled types. We require that “pairs” of Initialize/Adjust/Finalize operations are removed. (These aren't always pairs, which is why we talk about “any execution of the program”.)

Controlled types and user-defined finalization are new to Ada 95. (Ada 83 had finalization semantics only for masters of tasks.) 

{AI95-00161-01} Amendment Correction: Types Controlled and Limited_Controlled now have Preelaborable_Initialization, so that objects of types derived from these types can be used in preelaborated packages.

{8652/0020} {AI95-00126-01} Corrigendum: Clarified that Ada.Finalization is a remote types package.

{8652/0021} {AI95-00182-01} Corrigendum: Added wording to clarify that the default initialization (whatever it is) of an ancestor part is used.

{8652/0022} {AI95-00083-01} Corrigendum: Clarified that Adjust is never called on an aggregate used for the initialization of an object or subaggregate, or passed as a parameter.

{AI95-00147-01} Additional optimizations are allowed for nonlimited controlled types. These allow traditional dead variable elimination to be applied to such types.

{AI95-00318-02} Corrected the build-in-place requirement for controlled aggregates to be consistent with the requirements for limited types.

{AI95-00348-01} The operations of types Controlled and Limited_Controlled are now declared as null procedures (see 6.7) to make the semantics clear (and to provide a good example of what null procedures can be used for).

{AI95-00360-01} Types that need finalization are defined; this is used by the No_Nested_Finalization restriction (see D.7, “Tasking Restrictions”).

{AI95-00373-01} Generalized the description of objects that have Initialize called for them to say that it is done for all objects that are initialized by default. This is needed so that all of the new cases are covered. 

{AI05-0212-1} Package Ada.Finalization now has Pure categorization, so it can be mentioned for any package. Note that this does not change the preelaborability of objects descended from Controlled and Limited_Controlled.

{AI05-0013-1} Correction: Eliminated coextensions from the “needs finalization” rules, as this cannot be determined in general in the compilation unit that declares the type. (The designated type of the coextension may have been imported as a limited view.) Uses of “needs finalization” need to ensure that coextensions are handled by other means (such as in No_Nested_Finalization – see D.7) or that coextensions cannot happen.

{AI05-0013-1} Correction: Corrected the “needs finalization” rules to include class-wide types, as a future extension can include a part that needs finalization.

{AI05-0026-1} Correction: Corrected the “needs finalization” rules to clearly say that they ignore privacy.

{AI05-0067-1} Correction: Changed “built in place” to Dynamic Semantics and centralized the rules here. This eliminates the fiction that built in place is just a combination of a permission and a requirement; it clearly has noticeable semantic effects. This wording change is not intended to change the semantics of any correct Ada program.