Would you need a and is not a substruct? predicate to make such things work?
Robby
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Vincent St-Amour stamo...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
TR's complex number optimizations eliminate repeated boxing and unboxing
in chains of operations that each consume and produce
I don't think it would be necessary.
For the optimization to trigger, the only thing a step in the chain can
do with its argument is use its components. Anything else (e.g. checking
whether it's a substruct) would require the argument to be boxed, and
would prevent the optimization from
On 08/27/2012 09:11 AM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
TR's complex number optimizations eliminate repeated boxing and unboxing
in chains of operations that each consume and produce complex numbers.
Similar optimizations for structs would eliminate structs for
intermediate results in chains of
FWIW, the Scala folks have done something along these lines, Value Classes,
originally aka Inline Classes.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10TQKgMiJTbVtkdRG53wsLYwWM2MkhtmdV25-NZvLLMA/edit?hl=en_USpli=1
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.comwrote:
On
Oh, okay. And so if you have a function that accepts a struct, does some
work with it, and then returns a new version of it (and you wanted to
optimize the body of the function), then you could get away with doing
something like 'struct-copy' to make the final version that gets returned.
Robby
Is TR's optimizer eventually going to unbox structs in the same way it
unboxes rectangular flonums?
I have a design choice right now: how to represent probabilities. Floats
are good because of their speed, but because of floating-point
limitations, *four different representations* are
But don't you need the 'tag' from the struct to distinguish .4 in p from .4 in
1-p? They may be the same number but they denote distinct ideas. -- Matthias
'
On Aug 18, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
Is TR's optimizer eventually going to unbox structs in the same way it
unboxes
One could, concievably, still do that without boxing/unblocking by passing
wide enough arguments. And it does seem like TR could help with that, but
IIUC the untyped portion of the compiler needs significant work to support
that before TR's knowledge of the program would help (But doing a better
Vincent got TR to 'split' complex numbers, if that's what you mean by 'wide
enough' arguments, and he did so w/o changing R. So perhaps there is a way to
get the computation on floats and the tag for their meaning.
On Aug 18, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
One could, concievably,
Oh right! A generalized version of that strategy might work for Neil's
program too.
On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Vincent got TR to 'split' complex numbers, if that's what you mean by
'wide enough' arguments, and he did so w/o changing R. So perhaps there is
a way
10 matches
Mail list logo
