Am I right in thinking that in rule specifications we could get rid of
the ~dep(s) parameter of rules and have all deps be specified/
discovered dynamically via the 'build' argument ? Otherwise stated is
~dep(s) just an optimization ?
Out of curiosity any idea in the cost of suppressing
I've just had an enlightening few hours getting pcre-ocaml to compile under
Windows (I tried a few years ago and, very lazily, just gave up). I've
managed to get it to work but I'm wondering whether anyone else has done
this and, if so, whether they can explain/confirm/correct a couple of the
Hello Ocaml community---
I'm working on speeding up some code, and I wanted to check with
someone before implementation.
As you can see below, the code primarily spends its time multiplying relatively
small matrices. Precision is of course important but not an incredibly crucial
issue, as the
I don't think you can do better than calling some C functions (bound checking,
... ).
Why not have a look on ocaml bindings of C libraries (using bigarrays),
like ocamlgsl (O Andrieu) http://oandrieu.nerim.net/ocaml/gsl/
or lacaml http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.fr.cgi?contrib=255
Hope this
Le 20 févr. 09 à 16:39, Romain Bardou a écrit :
I think there is a difference. It is indeed an optimization issue
but not at the level of Ocamlbuild itself : it is as the level of
your compilation process. If A *dynamically* depends on B, and your
whole project (say, 10 hours of
Hi,
I am trying to evaluate ocaml for a project involving large scale numerical
calculations. We would need parallel processing, i.e. a library that
distributes jobs accross multiple processors within a machine and accross
multiple PCs.
Speed and easy programability are important. I have tried to
2009/2/20 Atmam Ta atmam...@gmail.com:
Hi,
I am trying to evaluate ocaml for a project involving large scale numerical
calculations. We would need parallel processing, i.e. a library that
distributes jobs accross multiple processors within a machine and accross
multiple PCs.
Speed and easy
Atmam,
I've had some luck using OCaml with MPI (using the OCamlMPI library at
http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.en.cgi?contrib=401 ). That may not
satisfy your needs as far as multi-core goes, but perhaps it will. I
can't speak to the speed of the interface (my operations were
compute-bound on
On Friday 20 February 2009 15:40:00 Erick Matsen wrote:
Hello Ocaml community---
I'm working on speeding up some code, and I wanted to check with
someone before implementation.
As you can see below, the code primarily spends its time multiplying
relatively small matrices. Precision is of
Victor Nicollet wrote:
I'm working with both lazy expressions and threads, and noticed that the
evaluation of lazy expressions is not thread-safe:
Yaron Minsky wrote:
At a minimum, this seems like a bug in the documentation. The
documentation states very clearly that Undefined is
I'm working on speeding up some code, and I wanted to check with
someone before implementation.
As you can see below, the code primarily spends its time multiplying
relatively small matrices. Precision is of course important but not
an incredibly crucial issue, as the most important thing
Wow, once again I am amazed by the vitality of this list. Thank you
for your suggestions.
Here is the context: we are interested in calculating the likelihood
of taxonomic placement of short metagenomics sequence fragments from
unknown organisms in the ocean. We start by assuming a model of
Unless you want to interface C-calls into BLAS/LAPACK directly without
bounds checking, releasing the OCaml-lock, and other fru-fru, it
seems unlikely that you will get much of an advantage using those
libraries given the small size of your matrices. E.g. Lacaml is
optimized for larger matrices
These are good points. I tend to compulsively eliminate any kind of memory
allocation from my numerical loops -- it's true the OCaml allocator is a lot
faster than malloc, but you could end up repaying a lot of that back to the
GC later!
The silly library I sent out does operate on OCaml float
You're totally right. I withdraw my complaint.
y
Yaron Minsky
On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Xavier Leroy xavier.le...@inria.fr wrote:
Victor Nicollet wrote:
I'm working with both lazy expressions and threads, and noticed
that the
evaluation of lazy expressions is not thread-safe:
15 matches
Mail list logo
