On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 10:50:51 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
If I remember correctly, core.simd should work with every
compiler on every supported OS. What did you try that didn't
work?
I figured out the issue! You have to compile using the -m64 flag
to get it to work on Windows (this works
On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 01:27:21 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 16:37:35 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
If you want really fast exponentiation of an array though, you
want to use SIMD. Something like http://www.yeppp.info would
be easy to use from D.
I've been looking into SIMD a
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 16:37:35 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
If you want really fast exponentiation of an array though, you
want to use SIMD. Something like http://www.yeppp.info would be
easy to use from D.
I've been looking into SIMD a little. It turns out that core.simd
only works for DMD
Err...vectors not matrices.
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 16:38:55 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
What OS are you on? See http://wiki.dlang.org/Compilers
I'm on Windows 7 at work, and I have both Win7 and linux at home.
I figure I can try it on linux at home. Sometimes the work
computer is a bit funky with installing things, so
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 14:43:17 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 13:15:05 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
*consistent as in different implementations performing very
similarly instead of seeing big differences like you have here.
That's a good point. I tried numpy's exp (which us
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 14:43:17 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 13:15:05 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
*consistent as in different implementations performing very
similarly instead of seeing big differences like you have here.
That's a good point. I tried numpy's exp (which us
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 13:15:05 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
*consistent as in different implementations performing very
similarly instead of seeing big differences like you have here.
That's a good point. I tried numpy's exp (which uses C at a low
level, I think) and found it takes about a
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 13:06:58 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 22:40:31 UTC, Baz wrote:
Right, my bad. This one whould work:
---
float[] test(float[] x) {
auto result = x.dup;
result.each!((ref a) => (a = exp(a)));
return result;
}
---
That works. Thanks.
I d
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 22:40:31 UTC, Baz wrote:
Right, my bad. This one whould work:
---
float[] test(float[] x) {
auto result = x.dup;
result.each!((ref a) => (a = exp(a)));
return result;
}
---
That works. Thanks.
I did some benchmarking and found that map tended to be fast
On 06/15/2015 12:44 PM, jmh530 wrote:
> On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:32:12 UTC, Baz wrote:
>> Ah sorry it's you the OP. just get it. So you wanted greedy, didn't
you ?
>
> I suppose I would want whichever has the best performance. Without
> testing, I'm not sure which one would be better. Tho
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 20:10:30 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
I suppose I would want whichever has the best performance.
Without testing, I'm not sure which one would be better.
Thoughts?
I had been fighting with the map results because I didn't
realize there was an easy way to get just the array.
I suppose I would want whichever has the best performance.
Without testing, I'm not sure which one would be better.
Thoughts?
I had been fighting with the map results because I didn't
realize there was an easy way to get just the array.
I'm actually not having much luck with your original fu
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:32:12 UTC, Baz wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:30:08 UTC, Baz wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:22:31 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:04:32 UTC, Baz wrote:
In addition to the other answers you can use
std.algorithm.iteration.each():
---
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:22:31 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:04:32 UTC, Baz wrote:
In addition to the other answers you can use
std.algorithm.iteration.each():
---
float[] _exp(float[] x) {
auto result = x.dup;
result.each!(a => exp(a));
return result;
}
---
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:30:08 UTC, Baz wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:22:31 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:04:32 UTC, Baz wrote:
In addition to the other answers you can use
std.algorithm.iteration.each():
---
float[] _exp(float[] x) {
auto result = x.dup;
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 19:04:32 UTC, Baz wrote:
In addition to the other answers you can use
std.algorithm.iteration.each():
---
float[] _exp(float[] x) {
auto result = x.dup;
result.each!(a => exp(a));
return result;
}
---
Am I right that the difference is that map is lazy an
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 15:10:24 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
I wrote a simple function to apply map to a float dynamic array
auto exp(float[] x) {
auto y = x.map!(a => exp(a));
return y;
}
However, the type of the result is MapResult!(__lambda2,
float[]). It seems like some of the th
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:07:55 +, jmh530 wrote:
> I have a little bit of a follow up.
>
> After making the recommended changes, the function seems to work with
> both static and dynamic arrays. I then noticed that all of the examples
> for functions that pass arrays in http://dlang.org/function
I have a little bit of a follow up.
After making the recommended changes, the function seems to work
with both static and dynamic arrays. I then noticed that all of
the examples for functions that pass arrays in
http://dlang.org/function.html use the dynamic array notation
like my function ab
On 06/15/2015 09:39 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?=
" wrote:
writeln(y.sum);// same as sum(y)
}
An equivalent of the last line:
writeln(reduce!((result, a) => result + a)(y));
`sum` is better for floating-point ranges, because it uses pair-wise or
Kahan summation if possible
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 16:16:00 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 06/15/2015 08:21 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> don't call .array if you don't have to, chaining calls to
> map and such, even foreach(item; some_map_result) can be done
without
> actually building the array and can give more efficiency.
On 06/15/2015 08:21 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> don't call .array if you don't have to, chaining calls to
> map and such, even foreach(item; some_map_result) can be done without
> actually building the array and can give more efficiency.
To add, the OP can use 'sum' or 'reduce' for "adding them t
Thank you all for the very fast answers. It looks like that works.
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 15:10:24 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
float[] exp(float[] x) {
auto y = x.map!(a => exp(a));
cast(float[]) y;
return y;
}
Also, I dont think your functions will work?
Your recursively calling "exp" in your map, but with a 'float'
instead of 'float[]'
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 15:10:24 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
So I suppose I have two questions: 1) am I screwing up the
cast, or is there no way to convert the MapResult to float[]
Don't cast it, just slap a .array on the end after importing
std.range. Like so:
import std.algorithm;
import std.ran
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:10:20 +, jmh530 wrote:
> So I suppose I have two questions: 1) am I screwing up the cast, or is
> there no way to convert the MapResult to float[], 2) should I just not
> bother with map (I wrote an alternate, longer, version that doesn't use
> map but returns float[] pr
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 15:10:24 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
float[] exp(float[] x) {
auto y = x.map!(a => exp(a));
cast(float[]) y;
return y;
}
But I get an error that I can't convert MapResult!(__lambda2,
float[]) to float[].
So I suppose I have two questions: 1) am I scre
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:10:20 +, jmh530 wrote:
you shouldn't cast it like that. use `std.array.array` to get the actual
array. like this:
import std.array;
auto y = x.map!(a => exp(a)).array;
the thing is that `map` returns so-called "lazy range". lazy ranges
trying to not do any work
I wrote a simple function to apply map to a float dynamic array
auto exp(float[] x) {
auto y = x.map!(a => exp(a));
return y;
}
However, the type of the result is MapResult!(__lambda2,
float[]). It seems like some of the things that I might do to a
float[], I can't do to this t
30 matches
Mail list logo
