From: "Rolf Wester" <rolf.wester@ilt.fhg.de>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Array Optimizations
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:20:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BE94320.26654.1BF88274@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011105.221118.74322497.debian00@tiscalinet.be>
> Hi all,
>
> The following paper (that I found by chance)
> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Courses/cs612/2001SP/projects/ocaml-arrays/OCaml.pdf
> describes a set of optimizations that improves array access speed in
> Caml _without_loosing_bound_checking_ (contrarily to the -unsafe
> option). The performance gain on their examples looks good, in fact
> they even beat gcc in some cases! In their words:
>
> The final performance of MMM surpasses even that of the
> best-case baseline kernel --- the linearized 1D Array with
> bounds checking disabled --- yet without sacrificing the
> safety of bounds checking or requiring the programmer to
> linearize accesses.
>
> and
>
> We conclude that OCaml could be a serious contender against
> languages such as C and Fortran for use in numerically
> intensive computation.
>
> Is there anything like that (to be) implemented into the OCaml
> compilers? I believe many people besides myself will be interested to
> have the power of Caml available with extremely good array access
> times in loops.
>
> Keep up with the good work!
>
> Cheers,
> ChriS
>
>
> P.S. As outlined in the paper, the Bigarray library is really slow
> (much slower than the standard Array). Given its (other)
> capabilities, it is tempting to use it for numeric processing however.
> Until this is solved, shouldn't there be a warning somewhere (in the
> manual?).
>
I my experience with Array and Bigarray the difference isn't so significant
as it is in the above mentioned paper. Nevertheless I would very much
appreciate Array and Bigarray perfomance comparable to C/C++. In that
case may be I could convince some of my colleagues to use OCaml for
their numerical work. Another approach could be to write a module comparable
to the Python Numpy package. In any case complex numbers in Bigarray
would be fine.
Rolf Wester
P.S.: At the moment I write a wrapper for interfacing with a subset of FFTW.
I use Bigarray float64 as a complex array with re(i) = v.{2*i} and im(i)=v.{2*i+1}.
Does anybody have a better idea?
-------------------------------------
Rolf Wester
rolf.wester@ilt.fraunhofer.de
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-07 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-05 21:11 Christophe TROESTLER
2001-11-06 15:51 ` Thorsten Ohl
2001-11-07 12:20 ` Rolf Wester [this message]
2001-11-07 20:10 ` David McClain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3BE94320.26654.1BF88274@localhost \
--to=rolf.wester@ilt.fhg.de \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox