On Jan 24, 2014 5:16 AM, "Alain Frisch" <alain@frisch.fr> wrote:

Revised description:  there is no need to keep the tag on B or C values when applying the A constructor, and one can skip the 0 integer as the second field when applying the B/C constructor.

   B (x, y)   ---->   b0 = 1:(id_t,x, y)
A (B (x, y))  ---->   b1 = 0:(id_t, b0)

   C          ---->   c0 = 2:(id_t)
A  C          ---->   c1 = 0:(id_t, c0)


This simplifies the criterion for checking if a value of type t has the B/C constructor (tag = 1 or 2) or the A constructor (tag = 0, and the argument is the second field of the block if the first is id_t, and the value itself otherwise).

-- Alain


On 01/24/2014 11:06 AM, Alain Frisch wrote:

On 01/17/2014 10:10 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:

There have been recurrent discussions of optimizing `'a option` to
avoid allocation in some cases, which is interesting when it is used
as a default value for example. (The nice recent blog post by Thomas
Leonard also seems to assume that `'a option` is somehow optimized.)

My strictly personal opinion is that I doubt this would be a good
idea, because I expect a fair share of the programming practice that
currently use ('a option) to move to something like (('a,
error-description) either) later in their lifetime, and I wouldn't
want people to avoid to do that for performance concerns.
Historically, we've rather come to see special-case representation
optimizations (eg. array of floats) as a mistake -- but on the other
hand there is not much downside to record of floats.

It could be argued the role of option types is important enough to
justify a special treatment for them.  But maybe one could think (just
for the fun of it) about a more general optimized representation for sum
types where one constructor should behave (mostly) as the identity at
runtime.

To take an example, consider a type:

   type ('a, 'b) t =
      | A of 'a
      | B of 'b * 'b
      | C

with some marker to tell the compiler to optimize the representation of A.

If one wants the constructor A to be the identity at runtime (in most
cases), we still need to distinguish C from A C, A (A C), A (A (A C)),
etc,  and B (x, y) from A (B (x, y)), A (A (B (x, y))), etc.  Here is
one possible implementation:  let's allocate a fresh value to represent
the identity of the t type:

   id_t = 0:(0)

that is, a block of size 1, tag 0, with a single 0 field (equivalent to:
id_t = ref ()).  (This value would be generated by the compiler and
passed along in modules which re-export the type t.)

The value (B (x, y)) would be represented as a block b0 = 1:(id_t, 0, x,
y)  (block with tag 1 and 4 fields).  Applying the A constructor to such
a block b0 would return a new block b1 = 1:(id_t, b0).  Applying again
the A constructor to b1 would return b2 = 1:(id_t, b1).

Similarly, the value C would be represented as a block c0 = 2:(id_t, 0).
  Applying A to such a value would return a block c1 = 1:(id_t, c0), and
then c2 = 1:(id_t, c1).

So, in general, applying the A constructor to a value x requires to
check if its argument is a block whose first field is equal to id_t, and
in this case, it returns a new block with the same tag and the two
fields id_t and x.  In other cases, the constructors simply returns its
argument.

With this representation, it is not difficult to deconstruct the three
constructors.  For a value of type t:

  - If the value is a block whose first field is equal to id_t and its
second field is 0, then the value comes from the B or C constructor
(according to the block tag) and the arguments can be found in the block.

  - If the value is a block whose first first is equal to id_t and its
second field is not 0, then the value comes from the A constructor, and
the argument is the second field of the block.

  - Otherwise, the value comes from the A constructor and its argument
is represented by the same value.


There is one correctness problem with this representation, though:
applying the A constructor to a float value cannot be the identity,
because of the specific representation for float arrays (which is
triggered by checking if the value is a float block).  This means we
must also have a special representation for A x, A (A x), etc, where x
is a float.  The scheme above extends naturally to support this
representation:  a0 = 0:(id_t, 0, x), a1 = 0:(id_t, a0), etc.


Another drawback is related to the use of the id_t block, which does not
work well with the generic marshaling, and requires extra plumbing to
make this value available where the type t can be constructed or
deconstructed.  It's possible to do better for a type with a "global name".


In case of a constant constructor such as C, one can of course
pre-allocate the block c0 = 2:(id_t, 0).  To avoid passing an extra
value around, one could store it within id_t itself (id_t = 0:(c0)
instead of id_t = 0:(0)).

Another optimization is to avoid the allocation when applying the A
constructor several times to the same B or C value.  This can be done by
memoization.  One can add an extra field to all the blocks described
above, initialized to 0, and updated to point to the "next" application
of A when requested.

So, we would have:

   c0 = 2:(id_t, 0, 0)

When applying A to it, one create c1

   c1 = 2:(id_t, c0, 0)

and update the last field of c0 to be c1:

   c0 = 2:(id_t, 0, c1)

If one needs to apply A again to c0, one can reuse the existing value.
The same applies to non-constant constructors as well.



-- Alain

--
Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs