Both way of writing a while loop should be the same. If you're seeing a
difference, something else is going on. I'm not able to reproduce this:
function f1()
j = k = 1
while k = 10^8
j += k 1
k += 1
end
return j
end
function f2()
j = k = 1
while true
k = 10^8 || break
Yeah, that's true. I didn't read the IR carefully enough.
Laszlo, are you on the latest Julia? I worry that it's hard to make comparisons
if you're running an older version of Julia.
-- John
On Mar 28, 2014, at 8:18 AM, Stefan Karpinski ste...@karpinski.org wrote:
Perhaps I should have said
Perhaps I should have said isomorphic – the only differences there are
names. It's more obvious that the native code is the same – only the source
line annotations are different at all.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM, John Myles White johnmyleswh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On my system, the two
Either way, one thing is quite unfortunate about this code. The compilation
process isn't able to figure out that 10^8 is a constant so it recomputes
it on every loop iteration. We really need a way to annotate functions as
being pure in the very specific sense that the compiler is free to
Thanks, John, for your replies. In my system your code gives reliable
results, too, if we increase the loop limits to 10^9:
julia mean(t1s ./ t2s)
11.924373323658703
This 12% makes a significant difference in my function of nested loops
(could add up to a factor of 2 slow down). So, the
Thank you guys. I couldn't imagine how many things could go wrong in a
computation session, under Windows. I rebooted my PC, and now the
benchmarks run 3 times faster (!), and I see no real differences in the
cases, except in the global context.
I agree that annotating pure functions could be
You can use let scopes, but I'm not completely sure I understand how they
work, but someone will correct me if this is wrong.
let stat_var = [1:10]
global f
function f(a)
return a*stat_var
end
end
Ivar
kl. 20:27:08 UTC+1 fredag 28. mars 2014 skrev Laszlo Hars følgende:
