Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Bigarray vs. array - mixing?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Bigarray vs. array - mixing?

>I've looked through the archives, but could not find any talk of this
>particular problem.
>Basically I have numerical code that uses Bigarrays in some parts (for 
>example  in interfacing with Lacaml), but other parts that use arrays.  It 
>doesn't seem to be that clean to make them co-exist.  Which should I use?

There's been some discussion of this on the list a long time ago (by 
me:).  I decided to just use bigarrays for all arbitrary sized matrices 
used for linear algebra, but use arrays for fixed things like 3x3 matrices 
and whatnot.  I still end up doing tons of submatrix stuff and calculations 
into and out of the bigarrays, just like you do.

I think the Right Thing is to optimize the native compiler to output better 
bigarray access code, so that using bigarrays is less painful.  I've looked 
at it and done some minor prototyping, and it doesn't seem like it would be 
that hard.  It seems like the Caml team doesn't feel this is necessary (at 
least based on previous replies) because you're only supposed to use 
bigarrays to interface with external libraries, but this ignores how you 
get the data into the bigarray in the first place, as you've found.

I think we only need a few optimizations to get most of the way there (I 
would do all of this on bigarray1d, using a different implementation for it 
than the genarray structure and using a real conversion function instead of 
the current typecast, since any real numerical code in caml is going to 
want to manage strides and row/column access manually on a 1d array, in my 

- a lighter weight "pointer"-ish slice type so caml code can reference 
individual rows of a bigarray1d in an outer loop without an allocation of a 
new reference counted bigarray C structure and data, blas and lapack use 
the fortran version of this all over the place, and C code does this using 
pointers everywhere as well...we need a way of expressing that operation in 

- some simple/naive special-cased hoisting of the bigarray data pointer 
load out of loops, it's currently fetched every access...having the above 
lightweight slice be in caml code would help with this I think...these 
pointer reloads are the big culprit, I think

- allow unsafe access (both with unsafe_get and with operators...I was 
going to use foo.\{i} for unsafe, and then also extend it to arrays and 
strings with foo.\(i) and foo.\[i] while I was at it, since why not make it 
consistent and that operator combination is available and works)...not 
bounds checking will begin to make a difference if you get a lot of the 
other inefficiencies out of the system (it's common to hear on this list 
that bounds checking doesn't cost that much, which is true until you've 
optimized the rest of the access code)

- then look for low-hanging fruit in the FPU code, especially for x86 
(which has been talked about recently on the list) general, I think 
the entire x86 code generator could greatly benefit from a simple peephole 
optimization pass, too

I'm not a compiler person, and I just messed around with the above, so I 
have no idea how hard it would really be (especially the data 
pointer  hoisting), but it didn't seem too bad when I looked at 
it.  However, I do think it's worth doing stuff like this, because the 
often mentioned retort of "use C for numerical stuff" just doesn't scale 
well to projects that do a lot of math dispersed throughout the program.


To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: