Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Tom _ wrote:
> > E.g.
> > 
> >         let a = ref 0. in
> >         for i = 0 to n-1 do
> >           a := !a +. Array.unsafe_get xs i
> >         done
> 
> Incidentally, rather than trying to come up
> with other workaround for imperative variables,
> maybe it would be better to just make the
> straightforward functional implementation fast:
> 
>   let loop i total =
>     if i=n then total else
>     loop (i+1) (total + Array.unsafe_get xs i)
>   in loop 0 0.0
> 
> In fact, in a compiler that already has TRO
> and type inference, shouldn't this be entirely
> equivalent to an imperative loop?

Yes, but I think the general problem that William Chesters alludes to (the
overhead of polymorphic variables) is an interesting one to solve
regardless. Coming back to the subject of this thread, in an ideal world, 
there wouldn't be a need to distinguish between Bigarray and Array, you'd 
just use polymorphic arrays and the compiler would be smart enough to 
always get unboxed and tag free element representations. Supposedly Stalin 
comes close (I've only played with it on *very* small programs) so maybe 
one day we'll get something similar. And maybe David McClain wouldn't have
to write his inner loops in C or Fortran. What a wonderful world that
would be...

> Another approach would be to adopt a "functional"
> loop syntax as found in languages like SISAL.  

Or SAC. But OCaml arrays (and strings) aren't functional, and the only
Clean and efficient way I know to deal with that is uniqueness type
information. Functional arrays (trees or version arrays) are not efficient
enough to replace imperative arrays when you have single threaded usage; 
definitely not the right data structure for signal processing or numerical 
linear algebra. OTOH (changing the subject) it might be nice to have
built in version arrays and functional strings for other reasons.

-- Brian


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr