Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
On Nov 14, 6:48 am, Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote: So my friend and I were screwing around, battling versions of LISP as nerds are wont to do, when I came across this: (eval `(clojure.core/+ ~@(take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 Invalid method Code length 89884 in class file user$eval13607 This is just trying to evaluate + directly on a bunch of arguments. Common Lisp on my friend's 30 year old Lisp machine does the equivalent of this with ease, even for much larger numbers. As I'm writing this, my friend is rubbing in this in my face by also doing the above with C-LISP on his laptop. (although his stack overflows for 1e5) I'm losing my battle!!! :( Pls. help! It's not a CL vs Clojure issue, rather a typical-CL-implementation vs JVM, as you're hitting the JVM method size limit (64K iirc). For example ABCL is a Common Lisp targeting the JVM and it has the same problem, not with eval but with files containing many functions (since it generates one big loader method for the whole file, and if there are a lot of functions in the file, that method becomes too big). Of course, since Clojure is strongly tied to the JVM, while CL is an open standard with multiple implementations, your friend is not completely wrong ;) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
On Nov 13, 11:48 pm, Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote: So my friend and I were screwing around, battling versions of LISP as nerds are wont to do, when I came across this: (eval `(clojure.core/+ ~@(take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 Invalid method Code length 89884 in class file user$eval13607 This is just trying to evaluate + directly on a bunch of arguments. Common Lisp on my friend's 30 year old Lisp machine does the equivalent of this with ease, even for much larger numbers. As I'm writing this, my friend is rubbing in this in my face by also doing the above with C-LISP on his laptop. (although his stack overflows for 1e5) I'm losing my battle!!! :( Pls. help! --Robert McIntyre Well, assuming the memory is available, at least Clojure is guaranteed to support vectors with more than 1024 elements... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
I'm building an ETL app, so aggregate functions of arbitrarily large arity is a necessity. I've had to wrap a lot of core clojure functions with concrete arg lists to make them work with lazy sequences. In my limited experience, machine generated code of this nature should use lazy sequences that get realized at eval-time rather with arg lists that are realized compile-time. Keep in mind that currently, functions are subclasses of AFunction where constants are stored in the class file as static final class members. This may eventually get optimized, but I wouldn't hold my breath; it would take a LOT of static analysis to recognize closures, and this level of support for macros will probably never happen. Each function eats up your permgen. Garbage collection of classes vs. objects is also REALLY tricky. So you're probably better off using sequences that consume plain old heap and functions that don't close over things so you use less permgen space. So yes, I don't think this is worth getting worked up about. On Nov 14, 9:13 pm, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote: That is not in fact an adequate workaround --- (eval `(apply + ~@(take 9001 (iterate inc 1 ;; OVER 9000!!! or, alternately (eval (cons 'apply (cons '+ (take 9001 (iterate inc 1) will fail just as in the addition examples. It's not true that you can just use an apply in your auto generated code, you would instead have to do something like a tree of function calls, so It may be worth increasing the limit for for the sake of enabling machine generated code. What are you peoples' thoughts on this? --Robert McIntyre Not worth getting worked up. David- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
On 15 Nov, 19:34, Brian Goslinga quickbasicg...@gmail.com wrote: Well, assuming the memory is available, at least Clojure is guaranteed to support vectors with more than 1024 elements... Unfair comparison. Clojure is not a standard, it's an implementation. SBCL is guaranteed to support vectors with 1024 elements too, for example. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
JVMs has a strange limitation for the size of methods. I don't know if there is a plan to solve that on the JVM side. It is quite hard to solve that on the compiler side. When I bumped inot this (once for an ICFP contest), I rewrote a macro so that it emitted smaller methods called from a big method. On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote: So my friend and I were screwing around, battling versions of LISP as nerds are wont to do, when I came across this: (eval `(clojure.core/+ ~@(take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 Invalid method Code length 89884 in class file user$eval13607 This is just trying to evaluate + directly on a bunch of arguments. Common Lisp on my friend's 30 year old Lisp machine does the equivalent of this with ease, even for much larger numbers. As I'm writing this, my friend is rubbing in this in my face by also doing the above with C-LISP on his laptop. (although his stack overflows for 1e5) I'm losing my battle!!! :( Pls. help! --Robert McIntyre -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- Sent from an IBM Model M, 15 August 1989. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:48:13 -0500 Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote: So my friend and I were screwing around, battling versions of LISP as nerds are wont to do, when I came across this: (eval `(clojure.core/+ ~@(take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 Invalid method Code length 89884 in class file user$eval13607 This is just trying to evaluate + directly on a bunch of arguments. I'd say the first problem is using the macro-building constructs outside a macro. I believe this is generally a bad idea. If you build the list and apply + to it directly, it works fine Clojure 1.2.0 user= (apply + (doall (take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 (apply + (take 1e4 (iterate inc 1))) 50005000 user= (apply + (doall (take 1e5 (iterate inc 1 (apply + (take 1e5 (iterate inc 1))) 55 user= But nope, you've got a real problem. It appears to be with eval: user= (eval (cons + (take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 (eval (cons + (take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 java.lang.ClassFormatError: Invalid method Code length 89881 in class file user$eval26 (NO_SOURCE_FILE:8) user= (count (cons + (take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 (count (cons + (take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 10001 Of course, eval isn't idiomatic clojure. Common Lisp on my friend's 30 year old Lisp machine does the equivalent of this with ease, even for much larger numbers. As I'm writing this, my friend is rubbing in this in my face by also doing the above with C-LISP on his laptop. (although his stack overflows for 1e5) Well, the apply version works out to 1e8 for me if I leave out the doall. If I use the doall, it runs out of heap at 1e7. I'm a little surprised that they're different - I figured apply would instantiate the sequence, and I'd need to use reduce instead of apply for really large sequences. mike -- Mike Meyer m...@mired.org http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
@Nicolas Oury I'd normally agree that you just shouldn't do that kind of thing, but this is not correct behaviour for something that I would consider a basic thing. It feels dirty that our functions don't work for arbitrary arities but instead for arities only between 0 and around 7000. Since apply does work for this, would it be possible for the reader to convert such long forms into something like (apply + (list long-list)) before evaluating them? @Mike Meyer Using apply is different than what I'm doing. When I use eval I'm trying to evaluate a huge s-expression. When you use apply you're evaluating a s-expression with three elements. Same thing with the count form (except with two elements). The problem isn't because I'm calling eval or not using idiomatic clojure; I just wrote it that way so it would only take one line. This version doesn't use anything non-idiomatic and still gives the same incorrect behavior: (clojure.core/+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
On 14 November 2010 15:43, Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote: @Nicolas Oury I'd normally agree that you just shouldn't do that kind of thing, but this is not correct behaviour for something that I would consider a basic thing. It feels dirty that our functions don't work for arbitrary arities but instead for arities only between 0 and around 7000. Since apply does work for this, would it be possible for the reader to convert such long forms into something like (apply + (list long-list)) before evaluating them? I believe the underlying problem is a limit of the JVM. Maybe it would be possible for the Clojure compiler to work around the limitation, though. -- Michael Wood esiot...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
I believe the underlying problem is a limit of the JVM. Maybe it would be possible for the Clojure compiler to work around the limitation, though. It has a non trivial interaction with the lack of TCO. The trivial transformation of going from a big method to a sequence of small methods could blow the stack. You could maybe do a tree of function call and emit a warning though. Does someone know what Scala does? Nicolas. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:43:11 -0500 Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote: @Mike Meyer Using apply is different than what I'm doing. Yup. When I use eval I'm trying to evaluate a huge s-expression. When you use apply you're evaluating a s-expression with three elements. Same thing with the count form (except with two elements). The problem isn't because I'm calling eval or not using idiomatic clojure; I just wrote it that way so it would only take one line. I did agree that there was a problem. The thing is, quasiquotes in clojure were designed for use in macros, and using them outside macros sometimes generates weird results: I wanted to make sure that wasn't the case here. My first attempt - in idiomatic clojure - didn't recreate it. So I went a bit further afield to do so. Are we really OK with having a 30 year old (Common Lisp/Lisp Machine) that operates at megahertz speeds do better than (clojure/JVM) here? Yes, I'm OK that a LISP running on an architecture that's the end result of decades of research on creating machines that run LISP well has fewer and/or higher limits than a LISP running on a VM designed to run Java. I'm not even sure it's worth any effort in fixing. You're not going to run into this limit except in machine-generated code, and there's an easy work-around: generate (apply fun (sequence)) instead of (fun sequence). mike -- Mike Meyer m...@mired.org http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
That is not in fact an adequate workaround --- (eval `(apply + ~@(take 9001 (iterate inc 1 ;; OVER 9000!!! or, alternately (eval (cons 'apply (cons '+ (take 9001 (iterate inc 1) will fail just as in the addition examples. It's not true that you can just use an apply in your auto generated code, you would instead have to do something like a tree of function calls, so It may be worth increasing the limit for for the sake of enabling machine generated code. What are you peoples' thoughts on this? --Robert McIntyre On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Mike Meyer mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org wrote: On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:43:11 -0500 Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote: @Mike Meyer Using apply is different than what I'm doing. Yup. When I use eval I'm trying to evaluate a huge s-expression. When you use apply you're evaluating a s-expression with three elements. Same thing with the count form (except with two elements). The problem isn't because I'm calling eval or not using idiomatic clojure; I just wrote it that way so it would only take one line. I did agree that there was a problem. The thing is, quasiquotes in clojure were designed for use in macros, and using them outside macros sometimes generates weird results: I wanted to make sure that wasn't the case here. My first attempt - in idiomatic clojure - didn't recreate it. So I went a bit further afield to do so. Are we really OK with having a 30 year old (Common Lisp/Lisp Machine) that operates at megahertz speeds do better than (clojure/JVM) here? Yes, I'm OK that a LISP running on an architecture that's the end result of decades of research on creating machines that run LISP well has fewer and/or higher limits than a LISP running on a VM designed to run Java. I'm not even sure it's worth any effort in fixing. You're not going to run into this limit except in machine-generated code, and there's an easy work-around: generate (apply fun (sequence)) instead of (fun sequence). mike -- Mike Meyer m...@mired.org http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
On Nov 14, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Robert McIntyre wrote: It's not true that you can just use an apply in your auto generated code, you would instead have to do something like a tree of function calls, so It may be worth increasing the limit for for the sake of enabling machine generated code. What are you peoples' thoughts on this? I for one would certainly prefer it if such limits on code size could be avoided. I'm a fan of machine-generated code in many contexts. But if the limit is dictated by the platform, with no straightforward workaround, then I guess we might just have to live with it anyway. -Lee -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Robert McIntyre r...@mit.edu wrote: That is not in fact an adequate workaround --- (eval `(apply + ~@(take 9001 (iterate inc 1 ;; OVER 9000!!! or, alternately (eval (cons 'apply (cons '+ (take 9001 (iterate inc 1) will fail just as in the addition examples. It's not true that you can just use an apply in your auto generated code, you would instead have to do something like a tree of function calls, so It may be worth increasing the limit for for the sake of enabling machine generated code. What are you peoples' thoughts on this? --Robert McIntyre Not worth getting worked up. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Incorrect behaviour for large s-expressions :(
So my friend and I were screwing around, battling versions of LISP as nerds are wont to do, when I came across this: (eval `(clojure.core/+ ~@(take 1e4 (iterate inc 1 Invalid method Code length 89884 in class file user$eval13607 This is just trying to evaluate + directly on a bunch of arguments. Common Lisp on my friend's 30 year old Lisp machine does the equivalent of this with ease, even for much larger numbers. As I'm writing this, my friend is rubbing in this in my face by also doing the above with C-LISP on his laptop. (although his stack overflows for 1e5) I'm losing my battle!!! :( Pls. help! --Robert McIntyre -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
