Bigarray question

Thomas Fischbacher

Xavier Leroy
 Thomas Fischbacher
 Thomas Fischbacher

Xavier Leroy
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date

by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous  next ] [ Message in thread: previous  next ] [ Thread: previous  next ]
[ Message by date: previous  next ] [ Message in thread: previous  next ] [ Thread: previous  next ]
Date:  20080128 (12:48) 
From:  Thomas Fischbacher <tf@f...> 
Subject:  Re: [Camllist] Bigarray question 
Xavier Leroy wrote: (on whether it is permissible to dynamically change the dim and data pointers in a ML bigarray): >>as far as I can tell, it is easy (but not explicitly allowed in the >>documentation) to allocate a Caml bigarray and change the data >>pointer inside that bigarray afterwards. >>There is no problem in implementing this, technically speaking. >>But this would require a change to the ML documentation stating >>that it is explicitly considered as permissible to change the >>data pointer in a bigarray. Can I get that, please? > > > I see no reason why this would cause problems, as long as the data > pointer points to C data of the right shape and dimensions. (Of > course, you could update the dimensions of the bigarray as > appropriate, if needed.) I don't think I would document this, as I > wouldn't quite know how to word it in the docs, but you have my > encouragements to try and report problems if any. As a matter of fact, considering the two C functions below which I use in our "nsim" abstract field theory/multiphysics simulation engine to speed up some internal computation, the first variant would be desirable but crashes. The second works. What this actually is about is to systematically go through the rows of a sparse matrix, handled by the PETSc library. (So, basically, I am using a sparse matrix as sortof a hash of row index to entries here.) CAMLprim value caml_petsc_matrix_call_on_rows_raw(value ml_mx, value ml_fun, value ml_start_row, value ml_end_row ) { CAMLparam4(ml_mx,ml_fun,ml_start_row,ml_end_row); Mat mx; int start_row,end_row,start_own,end_own; int i,ncols=0; const int *cols=0; const PetscScalar *vals=0; CAMLlocal2(ba_indices,ba_vals); petsc_checkinit(); petsc_check_mat(ml_mx); mx=(Mat)Field(ml_mx,1); MatGetOwnershipRange(mx,&start_own,&end_own); start_row=Int_val(ml_start_row); end_row=Int_val(ml_end_row); if(start_row == 1)start_row=start_own; if(end_row == 1)end_row=end_own; /* We would like to do things this way, but while one may guess that it should work, this (1) is not covered by what is permitted according to the OCaml documentation, and (2) indeed produces crashes. */ ba_indices=alloc_bigarray_dims(BIGARRAY_NATIVE_INT  BIGARRAY_C_LAYOUT, 1, cols, ncols); ba_vals=alloc_bigarray_dims(BIGARRAY_FLOAT64  BIGARRAY_C_LAYOUT, 1, vals, ncols); for(i=start_row;i<end_row;i++) { MatGetRow(mx,i,&ncols,&cols,&vals); Bigarray_val(ba_indices)>dim[0]=ncols; Bigarray_val(ba_vals)>dim[0]=ncols; Bigarray_val(ba_indices)>data=(void*)cols; Bigarray_val(ba_vals)>data=(void*)vals; callback3(ml_fun,Val_int(i),ba_indices,ba_vals); MatRestoreRow(mx,i,&ncols,&cols,&vals); } CAMLreturn(Val_unit); } CAMLprim value caml_petsc_matrix_call_on_rows_raw_defensive(value ml_mx, value ml_fun, value ml_start_row, value ml_end_row ) { CAMLparam4(ml_mx,ml_fun,ml_start_row,ml_end_row); Mat mx; int start_row,end_row,start_own,end_own; int i,ncols=0; const int *cols=0; const PetscScalar *vals=0; CAMLlocal2(ba_indices,ba_vals); petsc_checkinit(); petsc_check_mat(ml_mx); mx=(Mat)Field(ml_mx,1); MatGetOwnershipRange(mx,&start_own,&end_own); start_row=Int_val(ml_start_row); end_row=Int_val(ml_end_row); if(start_row == 1)start_row=start_own; if(end_row == 1)end_row=end_own; for(i=start_row;i<end_row;i++) { MatGetRow(mx,i,&ncols,&cols,&vals); ba_indices=alloc_bigarray_dims(BIGARRAY_NATIVE_INT  BIGARRAY_C_LAYOUT, 1, cols, ncols); ba_vals=alloc_bigarray_dims(BIGARRAY_FLOAT64  BIGARRAY_C_LAYOUT, 1, vals, ncols); callback3(ml_fun,Val_int(i),ba_indices,ba_vals); MatRestoreRow(mx,i,&ncols,&cols,&vals); } CAMLreturn(Val_unit); }  best regards, Thomas Fischbacher tf@functionality.de