English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] @, List.append, and tail recursion
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-01-24 (01:14)
From: Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@q...>
Subject: [Caml-list] @, List.append, and tail recursion

I hit a bug recently wiith @ and List.append.  Since they're recursive, 
not tail-recursive, on long enough lists Ocaml thinks you've gone 
infinitely recursive and aborts.  The code:

let longlist len =
    let rec longlist_int v c acc =
        if (c == 0) then acc else longlist_int (v + 1) (c - 1) (v :: acc)
    longlist_int 0 len []

let x = longlist 65536 ;;

List.append x [] ;;

Exits with:

Stack overflow during evaluation (looping recursion?).

So does:
x @ [] ;;

You can work around this like:

let append' a b =
   List.rev_append (List.rev a) b

Since both rev_append and rev are tail recursive (looping) and not 
recursive, this works.  But some ad-hoc testing says that this method is 
about 50% slower than normal append for lists short enough not to abort.

Thinking about this, I realized that my code is doing stuff like this all
over the place.  I'm basically doing sparse vector/matrix stuff, handling
(effectively) (colno * value) list for vectors, and (rowno * vector) list
for matrix.  And I may be hitting lists long enough to trip the problem.

Which means I'm currently doing a lot of recursion of the form:

let rec foo x = 
   match x with
       [] -> []
       | head :: tail -> (expr head) :: (foo tail)

for various complexities.  And it has occured to me that all of these 
forms *should* be optimizable into loops.  The general case would work 
something like this in C:

struct list_t {
    void * datum;
    struct list_t * next_p;

struct list_t * foo (struct list_t * x) {
    struct list_t * retval = NULL;
    struct list_t ** ptr_pp = &retval;

    while (x != NULL) {
        struct list_t * temp = alloc(sizeof(struct list_t));
        *ptr_pp = temp;
        temp->datum = expr(x->datum);
        temp->next_p = NULL; /* be nice to the GC */
        ptr_pp = &(temp->next_p);
        x = x->next_p;
    return retval;

If expr() returned a list, the only change necessary would be to find the 
end of the list before moving on, like:

struct list_t * foo (struct list_t * x) {
    struct list_t * retval = NULL;
    struct list_t ** ptr_pp = &retval;

    while (x != NULL) {
        *ptr_p = expr(x->datum); /* expr allocates the list */
        /* We assume the last element of the list expr() returned has
         * NULL for next_p.
        while (*ptr_p != NULL) {
           ptr_p = &((*ptr_p)->next_p);
        x = x->next_p;
    return retval;

Rather than just looking at making @ an inline C function, I think we (the 
Ocaml community) should be looking at adding this more general 
optimization in.

So now we get to my two questions:
a) is anyone working on this/intending to work on this RSN?
b) if the answer to (a) is no, can anyone give me some pointers on where 
to start looking at code, so I can add it in?


To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners