Random change in obj_addr() output when including the objects into a list and vectorizing over them
Asked Answered
B

2

6

There is a strange behavior of lobstr::obj_addr caused by its vectorization over lists, when the list itself doesn't change the address.

I just started Advanced R by Wickham (2ed) and reached the 2.2.2 Exercises first exercise. I supposed that, given:

a <- 1:10; b <- a; c <- b

all of them would have the same memory address as retrieved by the lobstr::obj_addr function. That is true if we just use a, b or c as inputs, but as I am lazy and wanted to have all the values at once, I did:

list(a, b, c) |> lapply(obj_addr) # lapply or sapply 

Then we obtain a different set of values among the different names every time the function is run. That still happens if we set x <- list(a, b, c) before calling the function through lapply, and obj_addr(x[[1]]) == obj_addr(x[[2]]) == obj_addr(x[[3]]) == obj_addr(a), so it's not a matter of creating a new list every time.

Does someone know what is going on here? I understand that to a certain point each call generates a new output object that will have its own memory address, but I don't know how lapply can interfere with a constant function for a given object like obj_addr.

Brambling answered 16/9, 2024 at 16:19 Comment(2)
It's interesting that x |> lapply(function(x) obj_addr(x)) and x |> lapply(obj_addr) return different results.Hyperkeratosis
obj_addrs(list(a, b, c)) (note the plural) should return the original addresses. Which, admittedly, doesn't answer your question.Infundibulum
K
4

This is caused by a bug in how lobstr identifies the environment

This error arises from the way lobstr uses rlang quosure tools to access the object without increasing the reference count. The purpose of this is to allow garbage collection to happen properly later, by ensuring there are no references to the object hanging around. However, in the case of lapply(x, lobstr::obj_addr), it does not correctly access the environment of the elements of x.

What does lobstr::obj_addr() do?

The (slightly simplified) source is as follows:

obj_addr <- function(x) {
  x <- enquo(x)
  obj_addr_(quo_get_expr(x), quo_get_env(x))
}

obj_addr_() is the C function that gets the memory address. However, first obj_addr() defuses the expression, so it can refer to it without increasing the reference count.

What happens with defusing in lapply()?

Consider the following function to get the environment of an object that a function is called from:

f <- function(x) {
    rlang::quo_get_env(rlang::enquo(x))
}

We can call this from lapply() in both ways:

x <- list(a = 1, b = 2, c = 3)

lapply(x, \(y) f(y)) # anonymous function
# $a
# <environment: 0x557c265eb438>

# $b
# <environment: 0x557c265ea910>

# $c
# <environment: 0x557c26e275c8>

lapply(x, f) # function provided directly
# $a
# <environment: R_EmptyEnv>

# $b
# <environment: R_EmptyEnv>

# $c
# <environment: R_EmptyEnv>

The first set of results make sense. lapply() creates a temporary environment each time it calls the anonymous function (the function closure).

However, it does not make sense that lapply(x, f) is running in the empty environment. We know we can refer to objects in the global environment with lapply(). But the empty environment by definition contains no objects and has no parent:

f_parent <- function(x) {
    e <- rlang::quo_get_env(enquo(x))
    message("Objects in environment: ", length(ls(e)))
    message("Parent environment: ", parent.env(e))
}

lapply(x, f_parent)
# Objects in environment: 0
# Error in parent.env(e) : the empty environment has no parent

So rlang::quo_get_env(rlang::enquo(x)) clearly returns the wrong environment. Let's try finding the parent environment of the function called by lapply() using base R:

f2 <- function(x) {
    parent.env(environment())
}
lapply(x, f2)
# $a
# <environment: R_GlobalEnv>

# $b
# <environment: R_GlobalEnv>

# $c
# <environment: R_GlobalEnv>

This makes more sense and gives us a clue as to what is going on.

Writing our own function to get the pointer

To rule out lapply() as the source of this inconsistency, let's write out own version of lobstr::obj_addr() that doesn't mess around with environments. The relevant line of the C-level obj_addr_() function is where it casts the SEXP to a pointer:

static_cast<void *>(x);

Here is a similar function to get the pointer which skips the rlang stuff:

get_pointer <- inline::cfunction(
    sig = c(x = "integer"),
    body = '
    // cast SEXP to a void pointer like lobstr
    void* ptr = (void*) x;

    // put the pointer in a character array
    char addr_chr[32];
    snprintf(addr_chr, sizeof(addr_chr), "%p", ptr);

    // put address in character vector and return it
    SEXP addr = PROTECT(allocVector(STRSXP, 1));
    SET_STRING_ELT(addr, 0, mkChar(addr_chr));
    UNPROTECT(1);
    return addr;',
    includes = "#include <stdio.h>"
)

Comparing get_pointer() to lobstr::obj_addr()

Let's define x and check the addresses individually:

x <- list(a = 1, b = 2, c = 3)

lobstr::obj_addr(x[[1]]) # [1] "0x557c22e8eb28"
lobstr::obj_addr(x[[2]]) # [1] "0x557c22e8eb60"
lobstr::obj_addr(x[[3]]) # [1] "0x557c22e8eb98"

We can now compare the results using lobstr in three ways. I'll use sapply() instead of lapply() as it prints more nicely. We can see that sapply(x, lobstr::obj_addr) is not correct.

lobstr::obj_addrs(x) # correct
# [1] "0x557c22e8eb28" "0x557c22e8eb60" "0x557c22e8eb98"

sapply(x, \(y) lobstr::obj_addr(y)) # correct
#                a                b                c
# "0x557c22e8eb28" "0x557c22e8eb60" "0x557c22e8eb98"

sapply(x, lobstr::obj_addr) # incorrect
#                a                b                c
# "0x557c24fdd7a0" "0x557c24fdd8f0" "0x557c24fdda78"

The question is whether we can get the correct results if we skip the environment stuff. This is where we can use get_pointer():

sapply(x, \(y) get_pointer(y)) # correct
#                a                b                c 
# "0x557c22e8eb28" "0x557c22e8eb60" "0x557c22e8eb98"

sapply(x, get_pointer) # correct
#                a                b                c 
# "0x557c22e8eb28" "0x557c22e8eb60" "0x557c22e8eb98"

So get_pointer() gets the correct results both times. This indicates that the issue is with lobstr's use of rlang quosure tools. I am not actually sure whether this is an rlang issue, or whether the problem is how lobstr is using rlang. However, as both packages are part of r-lib, I imagine that a bug report filed to either would find its way to the right place pretty quickly. However, it's not clear to me how this issue could be resolved while also not increasing the reference count of objects when they are inspected.

Kalin answered 17/9, 2024 at 9:40 Comment(7)
The issue is really that the object in question does not exist in the calling context of lapply. It isn’t really a bug in ‘lobstr’ (nor ‘rlang’!); instead, it’s a confusing consequence of using NSE inside (e.g., but not limited to) lapply. The same issue has been discussed on here before (and I reached same incorrect conclusion that it was a bug): https://mcmap.net/q/1026594/-use-of-glue-in-map-in-an-rmarkdown-in-a-new-environmentFacsimile
… and actually I need to rewrite my answer since obviously the issue isn’t lexical scoping, it’s that we are explicitly breaking out of lexical scoping by using NSE.Facsimile
… okay, no: it’s a bug in lobstr::obj_addr(), since it should signal that it cannot find the referred-to object, instead of returning an invalid address string.Facsimile
And now I’m actually confused that ‘lobstr’ doesn’t return an error: when calling lobstr:::obj_add_() manually and passing emptyenv() as the second argument, it does raise the expected error.Facsimile
@KonradRudolph I'm confused about two things. 1. I am sure that there's a reason for using rlang and NSE but I can't think of an example where my get_pointer() function doesn't work, so I don't know what it is. 2. I am still not sure whether the issue is that lobstr::obj_addr() is using rlang quosure functions incorrectly or whether the rlang function is returning the wrong results. It seems like you're saying it's the former. So what should lobstr be doing to identify the correct environment instead of rlang::quo_get_env(rlang::enquo(x))?Kalin
(1) Passing a value to a function in R creates a copy (well, evaluating the argument promise does, anyway). I know too little about the internals of R to know whether this might ever change the address. But my guess is that this is what ‘lobstr’ is trying to guard against. (2) Yes, the former. There isn’t really a good solution for identifying the correct environment from an expression (that is in fact the entire reason for quosures, but by the time ‘lobstr’ creates the quosure it’s already too late). Instead, it would have to extract the env out of the promsxp_struct.Facsimile
@KonradRudolph it appears that this commit in 2018 introduced enquo() etc. Prior to that it was very similar to my get_pointer(). The rationale was not NSE, but to get the memory address without increasing the reference count. It turns out get_pointer() increases it every time it's called. I may post a GitHub issue, though I'd like to suggest a solution. But I have no idea how to approach getting the correct address without increasing the reference count.Kalin
P
2

It seems that this behaviour is due to the fact that obj_addr is enquoing its argument before retrieving its address (see the function definition). So, we can examine the behaviour of enquo separately from the actual address-retrieving part.

For checking, we can define a function based on obj_addr that retrieves the address as:

.internal.address = function(.) lobstr:::obj_addr_(rlang::quo_get_expr(.), 
                                                   rlang::quo_get_env(.))

For reference, the object a is located at:

.Internal(inspect(a))
#@58398aa88108 13 INTSXP g1c0 [MARK,REF(65535)]  1 : 10 (expanded)

When outside the body of a closure, enquo returns something of no use in order to retrieve the address of the object, since enquo seems to be able to evaluate a symbol completely (in contrast to substitute for example) and return a newly constructed object:

enquo(a)
#<quosure>
#expr: ^<int: 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 5L, ...>
#env:  empty
.internal.address(enquo(a))
#[1] "0x5839a29c0018"
.internal.address(enquo(a))
#[1] "0x5839a29c0088"

Inside a closure, though, everything works as expected:

f1 = function(x) enquo(x)
f1(a)
#<quosure>
#expr: ^a
#env:  global
.internal.address(f1(a))
#[1] "0x58398aa88108"
.internal.address(f1(a))
#[1] "0x58398aa88108"

lapply evaluates its arguments during constructing the call and, probably, we can simulate its behaviour with force (to make it clear) like:

force1 = function(x) { force(x); enquo(x)}
force1(a)
#<quosure>
#expr: ^<int: 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 5L, ...>
#env:  empty
.internal.address(force1(a))
#[1] "0x5839a2816848"
.internal.address(force1(a))
#[1] "0x5839a2816b58"

since enquo does not return a searchable symbol anymore.

As MrFlick notes in the comments, wrapping with another layer of closure works as expected since enquo does not seem to reach a full evaluation of its argument:

force2 = function(y) { force(y); f1(y)}
force2(a)
#<quosure>
#expr: ^y
#env:  0x58399eef63d8
.internal.address(force2(a))
#[1] "0x58398aa88108"

Additionally, as an example, if we redefine obj_addr along the lines of:

obj_addr2 = function(x) lobstr:::obj_addr_(substitute(x), parent.frame())

then lapply does not cause confusion:

obj_addr(a)
#[1] "0x58398aa88108"
obj_addr2(a)
#[1] "0x58398aa88108"
lapply(list(a, b), obj_addr)
#[[1]]
#[1] "0x58399a991748"
#
#[[2]]
#[1] "0x58399a9917b8"

lapply(list(a, b), obj_addr2)
#[[1]]
#[1] "0x58398aa88108"
#
#[[2]]
#[1] "0x58398aa88108"
Pentacle answered 17/9, 2024 at 9:23 Comment(0)

© 2022 - 2025 — McMap. All rights reserved.