From: Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE>
To: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Martin Chabr <martin_chabr@yahoo.de>,
Pal-Kristian Engstad <pal_engstad@naughtydog.com>,
caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:09:55 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510031406320.28375@eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1128300118.10449.136.camel@rosella>
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, skaller wrote:
> > I hope that one day functional language compilers will
> > do that optimization for you - convert a
> > non-tail-recursive code into a tail-recursive one. Do
> > you know of some progress in that direction?
>
> Isn't that just CPS?
He presumably wanted to see a different thing, e.g.
automatically transforming
let rec fac1 x =
if x = 0
then 1
else x*(fac1 (x-1))
;;
into
let fac2 x =
let rec walk so_far todo =
if todo = 0
then so_far
else walk (todo*so_far) (todo-1)
in walk 1 x
;;
My impression is that it may indeed be possible to do something like this
for simple applications, but that the cases that can be covered
automatically presumably are so limited that an experienced programmer
will usually want to attack them by going to a higher form of abstraction
and not waste time on such things anyway.
I think that Olin Shivers indeed does have a valid point in pointing out
that writing loops in tail-recursive style has major disadvantages.
However, my impression still is that as soon as someone thinks in terms of
"I have to write a loop for this", chances are good that he may improve
his design by going back one step and ask the question "what do I want to
use that loop for?". In quite many situations, it is possible to express
one's thoughts more directly via other means, such as Array.map,
fold_left, etc.
What I (as a pedestrian) especially do not like about loops is that it is
much easier to make off-by-one errors than with any form of recursion
which contains a base-case/recursive-case analysis.
Unfortunately, the OCaml native code compiler apparently is not yet smart
enough to optimize code written in such a higher-order style well enough
so that it can compete with imperative or tail-recursive code in
time-critical applications. (Though quite many applications in fact are
not.) At present, one can expect to lose about a factor of ~3 in
performance.
Example:
===>
let timing_apply f x =
let t0 = Unix.gettimeofday() in
let f_x = f x in
let t1 = Unix.gettimeofday() in
(f_x,t1-.t0)
;;
let my_array_fold_left f init arr =
let len = Array.length arr in
let rec walk so_far pos =
if pos=len
then so_far
else walk (f so_far arr.(pos)) (1+pos)
in walk init 0
;;
let test m n =
let arr =
Array.init m
(fun j -> Array.init n (fun k -> j*k+k))
in
let scratchpad = ref 0 in
(* -- *)
let rec frobenius1 mx =
Array.fold_left
(fun so_far row ->
Array.fold_left
(fun so_far entry ->
so_far+entry*entry)
so_far row)
0 mx
in
let frobenius2 mx =
my_array_fold_left
(fun so_far row ->
my_array_fold_left
(fun so_far entry ->
so_far+entry*entry)
so_far row)
0 mx
in
let frobenius3 mx =
begin
scratchpad := 0;
for i=0 to (Array.length mx)-1 do
let row = mx.(i) in
for j=0 to (Array.length row)-1 do
scratchpad:= !scratchpad + row.(j)*row.(j);
done;
done;
!scratchpad
end
in
let frobenius4 mx =
let nr_rows = Array.length mx in
let rec walk_rows so_far nr_row =
if nr_row = nr_rows
then so_far
else
let row = mx.(nr_row) in
let len_row = Array.length row in
let rec walk_cols so_far nr_col =
if nr_col = len_row
then so_far
else walk_cols (so_far+row.(nr_col)*row.(nr_col)) (1+nr_col)
in
walk_rows (walk_cols so_far 0) (1+nr_row)
in
walk_rows 0 0
in
let frobenius5 mx =
let nr_rows = Array.length mx in
let rec walk_rows so_far nr_row =
if nr_row = nr_rows
then so_far
else
let row = mx.(nr_row) in
let len_row = Array.length row in
let rec walk_cols row so_far nr_col =
if nr_col = len_row
then so_far
else walk_cols row (so_far+row.(nr_col)*row.(nr_col)) (1+nr_col)
in
walk_rows (walk_cols row so_far 0) (1+nr_row)
in
walk_rows 0 0
in
let compute_n_times n f x =
let rec walk k =
if k = n then f x
else
let () = ignore(f x) in
walk (k+1)
in walk 1
in
Array.map
(fun f -> timing_apply (compute_n_times 1000 f) arr)
[|frobenius1;frobenius2;frobenius3;frobenius4;frobenius5|]
;;
let result = test 1000 3 in
Array.iteri (fun nr (_,t) -> Printf.printf "%d: %f\n" (1+nr) t) result
;;
<===
ocamlc:
1: 0.987257
2: 1.196910
3: 0.709074
4: 0.858948
5: 0.984935
ocamlopt:
1: 0.066404
2: 0.075691
3: 0.025450
4: 0.025756
5: 0.023472
--
regards, tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (o_
Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\
(lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_
(if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-03 13:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-25 21:32 Martin Chabr
2005-09-26 0:23 ` [Caml-list] " Bill Wood
2005-09-26 7:57 ` Claudio Sacerdoti Coen
2005-09-26 8:17 ` William Lovas
2005-09-26 21:07 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-09-26 22:08 ` Jon Harrop
2005-09-30 22:57 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-10-01 0:07 ` Pal-Kristian Engstad
2005-10-01 5:46 ` Bill Wood
2005-10-01 8:27 ` Wolfgang Lux
2005-10-01 18:02 ` Wolfgang Lux
2005-10-01 21:50 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-01 12:34 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-10-01 13:58 ` Bill Wood
2005-10-01 21:05 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-03 0:41 ` skaller
2005-10-03 1:13 ` Seth J. Fogarty
2005-10-03 13:09 ` Thomas Fischbacher [this message]
2005-10-03 14:57 ` skaller
2005-10-03 20:03 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-03 20:25 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2005-10-03 21:08 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-04 18:06 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-04 18:32 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-04 2:53 ` skaller
2005-10-04 16:15 ` Brian Hurt
2005-10-04 16:47 ` FP/IP and performance (in general) and Patterns... (Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data) Oliver Bandel
2005-10-04 22:38 ` Michael Wohlwend
2005-10-05 0:31 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-04 22:39 ` Christopher A. Watford
2005-10-04 23:14 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-05 12:10 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-10-05 13:08 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-05 15:28 ` skaller
2005-10-05 20:52 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-05 23:21 ` Markus Mottl
2005-10-06 16:54 ` brogoff
2005-10-05 0:45 ` Brian Hurt
2005-10-04 18:09 ` Ant: Re: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data Martin Chabr
2005-10-05 8:42 ` skaller
2005-10-05 11:14 ` Andrej Bauer
2005-10-01 21:36 ` Ant: Re: Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-03 11:51 ` getting used to FP-programming (Re: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data) Oliver Bandel
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=Pine.LNX.4.61.0510031406320.28375@eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de \
--to=thomas.fischbacher@physik.uni-muenchen.de \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
--cc=martin_chabr@yahoo.de \
--cc=pal_engstad@naughtydog.com \
--cc=skaller@users.sourceforge.net \
/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