☰
Navigation :

Narrow contracts

A program’s thread of execution can enter a “disappointing” state for two reasons:

The key to handling these disappointments correctly is to identify to which category they belong, and use the tools adequate for a given category. In this tutorial when we say “error” or “failure” we only refer to the first category. A bug is not an error.

A bug is when a program is something else than what it is supposed to be. The correct action in that case is to change the program so that it is exactly what it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, sometimes the symptoms of a bug are only detected when the system is running and at this point no code changes are possible.

In contrast, a failure is when a correct function in a correct program reflects some disappointing behavior in the environment. The correct action in that case is for the program to take a control path different than usual, which will likely cancel some operations and will likely result in different communication with the outside world.

Symptoms of bugs can sometimes be detected during compilation or static program analysis or at run-time when observing certain values of objects that are declared never to be valid at certain points. One classical example is passing a null pointer to functions that expect a pointer to a valid object:

int f(int * pi) // expects: pi != nullptr
{
  return *pi + 1;
}

Passing a null pointer where it is not expected is so common a bug that tools are very good at finding them. For instance, static analyzers will usually detect it without even executing your code. Similarly, tools like undefined behavior sanitizers will compile a code as the one above so that a safety check is performed to check if the pointer is null, and an error message will be logged and program optionally terminated.

More, compilers can perform optimizations based on undefined behavior caused by dereferencing a null pointer. In the following code:

pair<int, int> g(int * pi) // expects: pi != nullptr
{
  int i = *pi + 1;
  int j = (pi == nullptr) ? 1 : 0;
  return {i, j};
}

The compiler can see that if pi is null, the program would have undefined behavior. Since undefined behavior is required by the C++ standard to never be the programmer’s intention, the compiler assumes that apparently this function is never called with pi == nullptr. If so, j is always 0 and the code can be transformed to a faster one:

pair<int, int> g(int * pi) // expects: pi != nullptr
{
  int i = *pi + 1;
  int j = 0;
  return {i, j};
}

Functions like the one above that declare that certain values of input parameters must not be passed to them are said to have a narrow contract.

Compilers give you non-standard tools to tell them about narrow contracts, so that they can detect it and make use of it the same way as they are detecting invalid null pointers. For instance, if a function in your library takes an int and declares that the value of this int must never be negative. You can use __builtin_trap() available in GCC and clang:

void h(int i) // expects: i >= 0
{
  if (i < 0) __builtin_trap();

  // normal program logic follows ...
}

This instruction when hit, causes the program to exit abnormally, which means:

Another tool you could use is __builtin_unreachable(), also available in GCC and clang:

void h(int i) // expects: i >= 0
{
  if (i < 0) __builtin_unreachable();

  // normal program logic follows ...
}

This gives a hint to the tools: the programmer guarantees that the program flow will never reach to the point of executing it. In other words, it is undefined behavior if control reaches this point. Compiler and other tools can take this for granted. This way they can deduce that expression i < 0 will never be true, and they can further use this assumption to issue warnings or to optimize the code. UB-sanitizers can use it to inject a log message and terminate if this point is nonetheless reached.

Allowing for some input values to be invalid works similarly to cyclic redundancy checks. It allows for the possibility to observe the symptoms of the bugs (not the bugs themselves), and if the symptom is revealed the hunt for the bug can start. This is not only tools that can now easily detect symptoms of bugs, but also humans during the code review. A reviewer can now say, “hey, function h() is expecting a non-negative value, but this i is actually -1; maybe you wanted to pass j instead?“.