Posted on September 16, 2018 by Troels Henriksen

Programs have bugs. It is important that programming language implementations provide some means of detecting and correcting them. These means can take many forms. Low-level debuggers such as gdb and lldb operate at the level of assembly instructions; highlighting the triggering instruction in the event of segmentation faults, and providing access to register and memory contents. In practice, of course, compilers insert various annotations in the compiled program to help map instructions, registers, and memory addresses back to program statements and variables. This is feasible only if the compiled code still bears significant similarity to the original source—for example by disabling some optimisations. For languages that are intrinsically distant from the machine, however, even basic compilation results in machine code that requires major detective work to map back to what the programmer wrote.

Futhark is in this latter category. For such high-level languages, other techniques are used. The simplest, of course, is to litter the program with print statements and thus divine the internal state of an erroneous execution. Such “ printf debugging” is likely well known to anyone reading this post, and is a surprisingly effective technique that requires no extra tooling. Indeed, it is the main technique by which I debug the Futhark compiler itself, through the use of the Haskell function Debug.Trace.trace. Unfortunately, this technique is not directly applicable to Futhark, since Futharks compilation model assumes absolute purity—and the language itself is ill suited for constructing strings.

One problem with debugging compiled Futhark code is that the compiler aggressively reorganises not just the code, but also the data representation. As a simple example, an array of pairs [](i32,i32) is represented at run-time as a pair of arrays ([]i32, []i32) . Other arrays may disappear entirely, being fused into whichever operations use them. And finally, Futhark does not even mandate an element ordering in memory, and will represent the dimensions of a multidimensional array as whatever is most efficient for how it is eventually accessed. The actual layout of the array is not stored anywhere, but is embedded directly into the generated loops that access it. This is the downside of a heavily optimising compiler: the resulting code can be completely inscrutable.

High-level languages typically provide an interactive environment known as a REPL— a Read-Eval-Print-Loop. This is a powerful debugging tool because it allows the programmer to invoke internal functions in an ad-hoc manner and inspect their results. Typically, but not always, REPLs are built on top of an interpreter, as this provides faster response times.

Futhark has possessed an interpreter since the very early days (before the language was even called Futhark!). The interpreter was used to nail down the initial semantics before we had a code generator. Eventually, Futhark was split between the source language and a desugared “core” language. For reasons I no longer recall, the interpreter was chosen to operate on the core language. As the source and core languages continued to diverge—especially as the latter became dependently typed—we eventually had a situation where there was no longer and straightforward reference implementation of the source language. The core language interpreter had to pass the source program through a range of nontrivial compiler passes, for example the array representation transformation, before it was able to execute the program. While we did cobble together a REPL using this interpreter, it was clumsy and reported results in a desugared representation that was not necessarily compatible with the type of the original program.

As a result, I took a couple of days in late August to fashion a new interpreter that operates directly on a type-checked source language program. Performance was not a concern—we have compilers for that—so it was straightforward to write. To enable invasive debugging techniques like tracing and breakpoints, while keeping the implementation simple and pure, I constructed it using a free monad that allows the introduction of arbitrary effects, which are then handled by an external layer.

The following is an example of how to use the new interpreter, futharki , to inspect Futhark code. Since futharki is very slow when compared to compiled code, we can only debug on cut-down smaller testing sets, not on realistic workloads. However, we conjecture that in data-parallel programs, erroneous behaviour does not depend on the size of the input—we have “bug scalability”, in a sense. I think that data-parallelism is unusual among parallel programming paradigms by having this property.

futharki exposes debugging facilities through two special functions: trace and break . The trace function has the following type:

trace 't : t -> t

Semantically, trace just returns its argument unchanged, and when compiling your Futhark code, this is indeed all that will happen. However, futharki treats trace specially, and will print the argument to the screen. This is useful for seeing the value of internal variables. For example, suppose we have the program trace.fut :

let main (xs: []i32) = map (\x -> trace x + 2) xs

We can then run it with futharki to get the following output:

$ echo [1,2,3] | futharki trace.fut Trace at trace.fut:1:24-1:49: 1i32 Trace at trace.fut:1:24-1:49: 2i32 Trace at trace.fut:1:24-1:49: 3i32 [3i32, 4i32, 5i32]

Similarly, the break function is semantically also the identity function:

break 't : t -> t

When futharki encounters break , it suspends execution and lets us inspect the variables in scope. At the moment, this works only when running an expression within the futharki REPL, not when running directly from the command line. Suppose break.fut is:

let main (xs: []i32) = map (\x -> break x + 2) xs

Then we can load and run it from futharki :

> :load break.fut > main [1,2,3] Breaking at > :1:1-1:12 -> break.fut:1:24-1:49 -> /futlib/soacs.fut:35:3-35:24 -> break.fut:1:35-1:41. <Enter> to continue. > x 1i32 > x*10 10i32 > Continuing... Breaking at > :1:1-1:12 -> break.fut:1:24-1:49 -> /futlib/soacs.fut:35:3-35:24 -> break.fut:1:35-1:41. <Enter> to continue. > Continuing... Breaking at > :1:1-1:12 -> break.fut:1:24-1:49 -> /futlib/soacs.fut:35:3-35:24 -> break.fut:1:35-1:41. <Enter> to continue. > Continuing... [3i32, 4i32, 5i32] >

Whenever we are stopped at a break-point, we can enter arbitrary Futhark expressions to inspect the state of the environment. This is useful when operating on complex values, where we might want to inspect only a small part. We are even able to call locally declared functions if we so wish!

The desert survival strategy also affected the design of these debugging facilities. In particular, they had to be easy to maintain and easy to learn for users. Increasing the maintenance burden was avoided by removing the old interpreter. In fact, the old interpreter was problematic in that we had to modify it whenever we added or removed constructs in the core language, which happens much more frequently than in the source language.

From the user’s point of view, I did not want to add a Futhark debugging tool with its own set of commands that had to be memorized. However, every Futhark programmer knows how to call functions, and (eventually) knows how to enter expressions at a REPL. Hence, the debugger interface was built to depend almost entirely on these two concepts. This is in contrast to, say, gdb , where you usually set breakpoints via debugger commands, and inspect the environment via various printing commands (although in fairness, gdb also allows some C expressions to be entered).

I have already used futharki to debug various programs, and for all its simplicity, it seems to work very well. Most of all, I look forward to answering the question “how do I debug my program?” with something else than “stare really hard at it for a few hours”. In retrospect, I’m a little surprised we’ve managed to write nontrivial Futhark programs at all.

Futhark is a small and simple language—only the compilers are large and complicated. It has been our hope that this would mean that it is easy to write tools for the language. I believe this Futhark interpreter provides some evidence that this is indeed the case.