On Monday, 6 August 2012 at 15:21:38 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Minas Mina <minas_mina1...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Something like this:


template fib(ulong n)
{
        static if( n < 2 )
                const fib = n;
        else
                const fib = fib!(n-1) + fib!(n-2);

        if( n < 2)
                return n;
        return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2);
}

It doesn't work of course, as I am in a template and trying to "return"
something.

CTFE? Is that "compile time function evaluation"? If yes, it's really
slow...

If I try:
static x = fib(40); // fib is a normal function

it takes forever and makes my pc run really slowly.

Well, you're using the worst possible algorithm to calculate Fibonacci
(exponential time), so it's no wonder it's taking foverer :)
Then, you've to know that CT calculation is far slower than runtime calculation. My experience on this is about an order of magnitude slower, and even more. On the machine I'm currently on, fib(30) is
calculated instantaneously at runtime, but it takes 4-6s at CT.
Fib(40) aloready takes 4-6 s at runtime, so I won't test at CT :)

To come back to your question. __ctfe should be used with a standard
(non-static) if.
Here I implement to Fibonacci algos, one linear in n at CT, one
exponential ar RT.
That's just to show that a good algo at CT can run circles around a
bad algo at RT.
At compile-time, getting fib(100) is instantaneous, while getting only
fib(40) at RT takes a few seconds on my machine.

import std.conv: to;
import std.stdio;

long fib(size_t n)
{
        if(__ctfe) // compile-time, linear, sustained development
        {
long[] temp = new long[](n+1); // dynamic array during CTFE, D rox
                temp[0] = 1;
                temp[1] = 1;
                size_t p = 1;
                while (p < n)
                {
                        ++p;
                        temp[p] = temp[p-1]+temp[p-2];
                }
return -temp[p]; // '-' as an indication that this indeed took place at CT
        }
        else // runtime, exponential, woohoo baby!
        {       
                if (n == 0 || n == 1)
                        return 1;
                else
                        return fib(n-1)+fib(n-2);
        }
}

void main()
{
        enum f1 = fib(100); // CT
pragma(msg, "At CT, fib(100) = " ~to!string(f1)); // will be < 0 as a flag
        auto f2 = fib(40); // RT
        writeln("At RT, fib(40) = ", f2);
}

Don't try fib(100) at runtime!



Thank you for your reply!

Haha, yeah, I knew I was using the worst possible algorithm. It was just for testing... I'm never going to use ctfe with algorithms of that complexity again!

Ok, so I can use if(__ctfe) to define different behaviour(or not) at compile time than at runtime. The way I want to use it, however, I don't have to:

import std.stdio;

void main()
{
        ulong f1 = fibonacci(50); // calculated at runtime
        static f2 = fibonacci(50); // calculated at compile time
        
        writeln(f);
}

// calcuated at O(1) woohoo!
ulong fibonacci(ulong n)
{
        import std.math;
        
        double
                r0 = (1 + sqrt(5.0)) / 2.0,
                r1 = (1 - sqrt(5.0)) / 2.0,

                a =  1.0 / sqrt(5.0),
                b = -1.0 / sqrt(5.0);

        // fn = a*r0 + b*r1
return cast(ulong)(a * pow(r0, cast(double)n) + b * pow(r1, cast(double)n));
}


What I was really looking for was to do something like the way std.math.sin works. I read somewhere that if the argument is available at compile time, it evaluates the result at compile time.
So, if I do:
double f = sin(0.5); // calculated at compile time or not?

If it is calculated at compile time, how do I do it for my own functions? If not, I guess the only way is to use static or enum like you guys showed me.

Reply via email to