Optimizing Float Ref's

Optimizing Float Ref's

[Will M Farr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2014 bytes --]

Hello all,

I'm running OCaml 3.11.1, and I noticed something strange in some  
native code for matrix multiply today.  The code was

let mmmul store m1 m2 =
   let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
       (nk2,nj) = dims m2 and
       (sni,snj) = dims store in
   assert(nk=nk2);
   assert(ni=sni);
   assert(nj=snj);
   for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
     let row1 = m1.(i) and
         srow = store.(i) in
     for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
       let sum = ref 0.0 in   (* Un-boxed float ref? *)
       for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
         let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
         let x = Array.unsafe_get row1 k and
             y = Array.unsafe_get row2 j in
         sum := !sum +. x*.y
       done;
       Array.unsafe_set srow j !sum
     done
   done;
   store

(I compiled with ocamlopt.)  It multiplies the matrices (represented  
as arrays of arrays of floats) m1 and m2 together and puts the result  
into the matrix store.  Profiling the code, I noticed a call to  
caml_modify during the execution of this function!  Turns out that the  
culprit was the float ref "sum".  Changing to the following code  
(which eliminates the float ref, and uses the <- and .( ) operators  
instead of unsafe_set and unsafe_get) eliminated that call, and sped  
things up tremendously:

let mmmul store m1 m2 =
   let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
       (nk2,nj) = dims m2 in
   for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
     let row1 = m1.(i) and
         srow = store.(i) in
     for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
       srow.(j) <- 0.0;
       for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
         let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
         let x = row1.(k) and
             y = row2.(j) in
         srow.(j) <- srow.(j) +. x*.y
       done
     done
   done;
   store

But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the  
compiler when they didn't escape the local context.  Is this a  
complier bug, is there a bad interaction with unsafe_get and  
unsafe_set, or is there something else going on that I don't  
understand?  Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

Thanks!
Will

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Yaron Minsky]

Float refs are not unboxed automatically, because refs
Are polymorphic containers. If you create your own pseudo-ref, i.e., a  
record with a single mutable float field, then I believe you should  
get the behaviour you expect.

Come to think of it, I wonder if it would be better to implement ref  
on top of a single-cell array, since then everyone would get the float  
unboxing whenever applicable. I imagine there is some runtime overhead  
to this, though.

y


On Aug 28, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Will M Farr <farr@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I'm running OCaml 3.11.1, and I noticed something strange in some  
> native code for matrix multiply today.  The code was
>
> let mmmul store m1 m2 =
>  let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
>      (nk2,nj) = dims m2 and
>      (sni,snj) = dims store in
>  assert(nk=nk2);
>  assert(ni=sni);
>  assert(nj=snj);
>  for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
>    let row1 = m1.(i) and
>        srow = store.(i) in
>    for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
>      let sum = ref 0.0 in   (* Un-boxed float ref? *)
>      for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
>        let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
>        let x = Array.unsafe_get row1 k and
>            y = Array.unsafe_get row2 j in
>        sum := !sum +. x*.y
>      done;
>      Array.unsafe_set srow j !sum
>    done
>  done;
>  store
>
> (I compiled with ocamlopt.)  It multiplies the matrices (represented  
> as arrays of arrays of floats) m1 and m2 together and puts the  
> result into the matrix store.  Profiling the code, I noticed a call  
> to caml_modify during the execution of this function!  Turns out  
> that the culprit was the float ref "sum".  Changing to the following  
> code (which eliminates the float ref, and uses the <- and .( )  
> operators instead of unsafe_set and unsafe_get) eliminated that  
> call, and sped things up tremendously:
>
> let mmmul store m1 m2 =
>  let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
>      (nk2,nj) = dims m2 in
>  for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
>    let row1 = m1.(i) and
>        srow = store.(i) in
>    for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
>      srow.(j) <- 0.0;
>      for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
>        let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
>        let x = row1.(k) and
>            y = row2.(j) in
>        srow.(j) <- srow.(j) +. x*.y
>      done
>    done
>  done;
>  store
>
> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the  
> compiler when they didn't escape the local context.  Is this a  
> complier bug, is there a bad interaction with unsafe_get and  
> unsafe_set, or is there something else going on that I don't  
> understand?  Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
> Will
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Till Varoquaux]

True. All float records and float arrays are unboxed so modifications
don't have to pass through caml_modify. A single cell array will still
have dynamic bound checking so I would recommend going for the record.
Till

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Yaron Minsky<yminsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> Float refs are not unboxed automatically, because refs
> Are polymorphic containers. If you create your own pseudo-ref, i.e., a
> record with a single mutable float field, then I believe you should get the
> behaviour you expect.
>
> Come to think of it, I wonder if it would be better to implement ref on top
> of a single-cell array, since then everyone would get the float unboxing
> whenever applicable. I imagine there is some runtime overhead to this,
> though.
>
> y
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Will M Farr <farr@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'm running OCaml 3.11.1, and I noticed something strange in some native
>> code for matrix multiply today.  The code was
>>
>> let mmmul store m1 m2 =
>>  let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
>>     (nk2,nj) = dims m2 and
>>     (sni,snj) = dims store in
>>  assert(nk=nk2);
>>  assert(ni=sni);
>>  assert(nj=snj);
>>  for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
>>   let row1 = m1.(i) and
>>       srow = store.(i) in
>>   for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
>>     let sum = ref 0.0 in   (* Un-boxed float ref? *)
>>     for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
>>       let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
>>       let x = Array.unsafe_get row1 k and
>>           y = Array.unsafe_get row2 j in
>>       sum := !sum +. x*.y
>>     done;
>>     Array.unsafe_set srow j !sum
>>   done
>>  done;
>>  store
>>
>> (I compiled with ocamlopt.)  It multiplies the matrices (represented as
>> arrays of arrays of floats) m1 and m2 together and puts the result into the
>> matrix store.  Profiling the code, I noticed a call to caml_modify during
>> the execution of this function!  Turns out that the culprit was the float
>> ref "sum".  Changing to the following code (which eliminates the float ref,
>> and uses the <- and .( ) operators instead of unsafe_set and unsafe_get)
>> eliminated that call, and sped things up tremendously:
>>
>> let mmmul store m1 m2 =
>>  let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
>>     (nk2,nj) = dims m2 in
>>  for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
>>   let row1 = m1.(i) and
>>       srow = store.(i) in
>>   for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
>>     srow.(j) <- 0.0;
>>     for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
>>       let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
>>       let x = row1.(k) and
>>           y = row2.(j) in
>>       srow.(j) <- srow.(j) +. x*.y
>>     done
>>   done
>>  done;
>>  store
>>
>> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the compiler
>> when they didn't escape the local context.  Is this a complier bug, is there
>> a bad interaction with unsafe_get and unsafe_set, or is there something else
>> going on that I don't understand?  Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Will
>> _______________________________________________
>> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
>> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
>> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
>> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Will M Farr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4065 bytes --]

Thanks to all who have replied.  I didn't realize that references were  
always boxed (I thought that, internally, a reference was implemented  
as a one-element array, and therefore float refs would benefit from  
the automatic unboxing of float arrays).  That's good to know.

Will

On Aug 31, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Till Varoquaux wrote:

> True. All float records and float arrays are unboxed so modifications
> don't have to pass through caml_modify. A single cell array will still
> have dynamic bound checking so I would recommend going for the record.
> Till
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Yaron Minsky<yminsky@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> Float refs are not unboxed automatically, because refs
>> Are polymorphic containers. If you create your own pseudo-ref,  
>> i.e., a
>> record with a single mutable float field, then I believe you should  
>> get the
>> behaviour you expect.
>>
>> Come to think of it, I wonder if it would be better to implement  
>> ref on top
>> of a single-cell array, since then everyone would get the float  
>> unboxing
>> whenever applicable. I imagine there is some runtime overhead to  
>> this,
>> though.
>>
>> y
>>
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Will M Farr <farr@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I'm running OCaml 3.11.1, and I noticed something strange in some  
>>> native
>>> code for matrix multiply today.  The code was
>>>
>>> let mmmul store m1 m2 =
>>>  let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
>>>     (nk2,nj) = dims m2 and
>>>     (sni,snj) = dims store in
>>>  assert(nk=nk2);
>>>  assert(ni=sni);
>>>  assert(nj=snj);
>>>  for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
>>>   let row1 = m1.(i) and
>>>       srow = store.(i) in
>>>   for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
>>>     let sum = ref 0.0 in   (* Un-boxed float ref? *)
>>>     for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
>>>       let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
>>>       let x = Array.unsafe_get row1 k and
>>>           y = Array.unsafe_get row2 j in
>>>       sum := !sum +. x*.y
>>>     done;
>>>     Array.unsafe_set srow j !sum
>>>   done
>>>  done;
>>>  store
>>>
>>> (I compiled with ocamlopt.)  It multiplies the matrices  
>>> (represented as
>>> arrays of arrays of floats) m1 and m2 together and puts the result  
>>> into the
>>> matrix store.  Profiling the code, I noticed a call to caml_modify  
>>> during
>>> the execution of this function!  Turns out that the culprit was  
>>> the float
>>> ref "sum".  Changing to the following code (which eliminates the  
>>> float ref,
>>> and uses the <- and .( ) operators instead of unsafe_set and  
>>> unsafe_get)
>>> eliminated that call, and sped things up tremendously:
>>>
>>> let mmmul store m1 m2 =
>>>  let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
>>>     (nk2,nj) = dims m2 in
>>>  for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
>>>   let row1 = m1.(i) and
>>>       srow = store.(i) in
>>>   for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
>>>     srow.(j) <- 0.0;
>>>     for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
>>>       let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
>>>       let x = row1.(k) and
>>>           y = row2.(j) in
>>>       srow.(j) <- srow.(j) +. x*.y
>>>     done
>>>   done
>>>  done;
>>>  store
>>>
>>> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the  
>>> compiler
>>> when they didn't escape the local context.  Is this a complier  
>>> bug, is there
>>> a bad interaction with unsafe_get and unsafe_set, or is there  
>>> something else
>>> going on that I don't understand?  Any enlightenment would be  
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Will
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
>>> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
>>> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
>>> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>>> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
>> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
>> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
>> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>>


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Jon Harrop]

On Sunday 30 August 2009 20:43:17 Yaron Minsky wrote:
> Float refs are not unboxed automatically, because refs 
> Are polymorphic containers. If you create your own pseudo-ref, i.e., a
> record with a single mutable float field, then I believe you should
> get the behaviour you expect.

I believe you are talking at cross purposes. Will wants his accumulator in a 
register. You are referring to float references in data structures being 
boxed because records are boxed.

Look at the compiled forms of the inner loops of these dot products, for 
example:

let dot a b =
  let x = ref 0.0 in
  for i=0 to Array.length a - 1 do
    x := !x +. a.(i) *. b.(i)
  done;
  !x

.L101:
.L103:  movl    caml_young_ptr, %eax
        subl    $12, %eax
        movl    %eax, caml_young_ptr
        cmpl    caml_young_limit, %eax
        jb      .L104
        leal    4(%eax), %eax
        movl    $2301, -4(%eax)
        fldl    -4(%edi, %ecx, 4)
        fmull   -4(%ebx, %ecx, 4)
        faddl   (%esi)
        fstpl   (%eax)
        movl    %eax, %esi
        movl    %ecx, %eax
        addl    $2, %ecx
        cmpl    %edx, %eax
        jne     .L101

let dot2 a b =
  let x = ref 0.0 in
  for i=0 to Array.length a - 1 do
    x := !x +. a.(i) *. b.(i)
  done;
  1.0 *. !x

.L107:
        fldl    -4(%eax, %ecx, 4)
        fmull   -4(%ebx, %ecx, 4)
        faddl   0(%esp)
        fstpl   0(%esp)
        movl    %ecx, %edx
        addl    $2, %ecx
        cmpl    %esi, %edx
        jne     .L107

In the latter case, "x" is unboxed into a register.

> Come to think of it, I wonder if it would be better to implement ref
> on top of a single-cell array, since then everyone would get the float
> unboxing whenever applicable. I imagine there is some runtime overhead
> to this, though.

All-float (including one-float) records are unboxed anyway.

Boxing was discussed in the book OCaml for Scientists and the OCaml Journal 
articles about optimization and the SciMark2 benchmark.

-- 
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Jon Harrop]

On Friday 28 August 2009 21:32:55 Will M Farr wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm running OCaml 3.11.1, and I noticed something strange in some
> native code for matrix multiply today.

I'm running OCaml 3.11.0 and I get the opposite result on both x86 and x64:

$ ./will
Took 31.445965s
Took 39.942496s

$ ./will
Took 25.457591s
Took 40.414526s

> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the
> compiler when they didn't escape the local context.  Is this a
> complier bug, is there a bad interaction with unsafe_get and
> unsafe_set, or is there something else going on that I don't
> understand?  Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

That appears to occur in this case on my machine but it can be hampered 
sometimes if the accumulator is returned immediately and the problem worked 
around by performing a redundant floating point operation (such as 1.0 *. x) 
on the result.

-- 
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Xavier Leroy]

> I'm running OCaml 3.11.1, and I noticed something strange in some native 
> code for matrix multiply today.  The code was
> [...]
> [Local float ref being unboxed or not? ]

You omitted the definition of "dims", but after adding the obvious
definition, the float ref "sum" is indeed completely unboxed and is
kept in a float register (on x86-64 bits) or stack location (on x86-32
bits).  No "modify" takes place in the inner loop.  So, I don't
understand the problem you observed.  Feel free to post a report on
the BTS with a *complete* piece of code that reproduces the problem.

> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the 
> compiler when they didn't escape the local context.

Yes, if all uses of the float ref are unboxed, which is the case in
your code.

- Xavier Leroy

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Will M Farr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1533 bytes --]

Xavier,

Thanks for the comments.  I thought that float ref's were unboxed by  
default!  In fact, I find that breaking out the code into a stand- 
alone example which loops through matrix multiplies only indeed does  
not have any calls to "caml_modify"; everything is unboxed and stored  
on the stack (I'm on x86) as you say.  It must be the remainder of my  
application that is producing the calls to caml_modify (the profile I  
was using was embedded in a larger application with lots of inlining  
going on, so maybe something that calls caml_modify is getting inlined  
around the matrix multiply and confusing the profiler).

Thanks,
Will

On Sep 3, 2009, at 5:44 AM, Xavier Leroy wrote:

>> I'm running OCaml 3.11.1, and I noticed something strange in some  
>> native code for matrix multiply today.  The code was
>> [...]
>> [Local float ref being unboxed or not? ]
>
> You omitted the definition of "dims", but after adding the obvious
> definition, the float ref "sum" is indeed completely unboxed and is
> kept in a float register (on x86-64 bits) or stack location (on x86-32
> bits).  No "modify" takes place in the inner loop.  So, I don't
> understand the problem you observed.  Feel free to post a report on
> the BTS with a *complete* piece of code that reproduces the problem.
>
>> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the  
>> compiler when they didn't escape the local context.
>
> Yes, if all uses of the float ref are unboxed, which is the case in
> your code.
>
> - Xavier Leroy


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Dmitry Bely]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr> wrote:
(...)
>> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the compiler
>> when they didn't escape the local context.
>
> Yes, if all uses of the float ref are unboxed, which is the case in
> your code.

let max_val (a:float array) =
  let m = ref min_float in
  for i = 0 to (Array.length a) - 1 do
    if a.(i) > !m
    then m := a.(i)
  done;
  !m

!m is not unboxed (Ocaml 3.11). Should it?

- Dmitry Bely

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Dmitry Bely]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Jake Donham <jake@donham.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Dmitry Bely <dmitry.bely@gmail.com> wrote:
>> let max_val (a:float array) =
>>  let m = ref min_float in
>>  for i = 0 to (Array.length a) - 1 do
>>    if a.(i) > !m
>>    then m := a.(i)
>>  done;
>>  !m
>>
>> !m is not unboxed (Ocaml 3.11). Should it?
>
> Why do you say that? It looks unboxed in the lambda code:
>
>  (let
>    (max_val/58
>       (function a/59
>         (let (m/60 (field 13 (global Pervasives!)))
>           (seq
>             (for i/61 0 to (- (array.length a/59) 1)
>               (if (>. (array.get a/59 i/61) m/60)
>                 (assign m/60 (array.get a/59 i/61)) 0a))
>             m/60))))

No. "assign" is translated into memory allocation inside the loop.

> My x86 assembler is not very good but it looks to me like m is kept in %esi.

Ok, probably returning float makes allocation place not obvious. Try
this variant:

let max_val (a:float array) =
  let m = ref min_float in
  for i = 0 to (Array.length a) - 1 do
    if a.(i) > !m
    then m := a.(i)
  done;
  truncate !m

It's translated into the following C-- code (-unsafe flag):

(function camlT__max_val_58 (a/59: addr)
 (let m/60 (load (+a "camlPervasives" 52))
   (let (i/61 1 bound/65 (+ (or (>>u (load (+a a/59 -4)) 10) 1) -2))
     (catch
       (if (> i/61 bound/65) (exit 3)
         (loop
           (if
             (>f (load float64u (+a (+a a/59 (<< i/61 2)) -4))
               (load float64u m/60))
             (assign m/60
                       (alloc 2301
                         (load float64u (+a (+a a/59 (<< i/61 2)) -4))))
             [])
           (let i/64 i/61 (assign i/61 (+ i/61 2))
             (if (== i/64 bound/65) (exit 3) []))))
     with(3) []))
   (+ (<< (intoffloat (load float64u m/60)) 1) 1)))

See "alloc 2301" inside the loop? That's boxed float.

- Dmitry Bely

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Alain Frisch]

On 31/03/2010 19:21, Dmitry Bely wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Xavier Leroy<Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>  wrote:
> (...)
>>> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the compiler
>>> when they didn't escape the local context.
>>
>> Yes, if all uses of the float ref are unboxed, which is the case in
>> your code.
>
> let max_val (a:float array) =
>    let m = ref min_float in
>    for i = 0 to (Array.length a) - 1 do
>      if a.(i)>  !m
>      then m := a.(i)
>    done;
>    !m
>
> !m is not unboxed (Ocaml 3.11). Should it?

As far as I can tell, the boxing for the reference cell is removed by 
the compiler (that is, the reference is implemented as a mutable local 
variable), but not the boxing for the float contained in the reference. 
Since a is a float array, it is needed to box the float before putting 
it in the reference, hence the allocation.


-- Alain

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Dmitry Bely]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Alain Frisch <alain@frisch.fr> wrote:
> On 31/03/2010 19:21, Dmitry Bely wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Xavier Leroy<Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
>>  wrote:
>> (...)
>>>>
>>>> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the
>>>> compiler
>>>> when they didn't escape the local context.
>>>
>>> Yes, if all uses of the float ref are unboxed, which is the case in
>>> your code.
>>
>> let max_val (a:float array) =
>>   let m = ref min_float in
>>   for i = 0 to (Array.length a) - 1 do
>>     if a.(i)>  !m
>>     then m := a.(i)
>>   done;
>>   !m
>>
>> !m is not unboxed (Ocaml 3.11). Should it?
>
> As far as I can tell, the boxing for the reference cell is removed by the
> compiler (that is, the reference is implemented as a mutable local
> variable), but not the boxing for the float contained in the reference.
> Since a is a float array, it is needed to box the float before putting it in
> the reference, hence the allocation.

Hmm, my interpretation of Xavier's words was that the compiler would
completely optimize out memory allocation and keep !m in register. I
can live with the allocation but not at every iteration... How to
rewrite the function to get rid of it? My best achievement so far is

let max_val (a:float array) =
  let m = [|-.min_float|] in
  for i = 0 to (Array.length a) - 1 do
    if a.(i) > m.(0)
    then m.(0) <- a.(i)
  done;
  m.(0)

but it looks ugly...

- Dmitry Bely

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Dmitry Bely]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Ted Sandler <ted.sandler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> rpretation of Xavier's words was that the compiler would
>> completely optimize out memory allocation and keep !m in register. I
>> can live with the allocation but not at every iteration... How to
>> rewrite the function to get rid of it? My best achievement so far is
>
> Try tail-recursion.

Won't work. Show the code.

- Dmitry Bely

Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing Float Ref's

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Dmitry Bely <dmitry.bely@gmail.com> writes:

> rewrite the function to get rid of it? My best achievement so far is
>
> let max_val (a:float array) =
>   let m = [|-.min_float|] in
>   for i = 0 to (Array.length a) - 1 do
>     if a.(i) > m.(0)
>     then m.(0) <- a.(i)
>   done;
>   m.(0)
>
> but it looks ugly...
>
> - Dmitry Bely

Why not store the index of the max element instead of the float itself?
Recursively, to avoid the ref as well, this could look like this:

let max_val (a:float array) =
  let len = Array.length a in
  let rec loop max i =
    if i = len
    then a.(max)
    else
      if a.(max) > a.(i)
      then loop max (i + 1)
      else loop i (i + 1)
  in
    if len = 0
    then -.min_float
    else loop 0 1

MfG
        Goswin