Invitation : "propo/ je vai transferai $12.million sur ton compte ci oui
je te le dit detail".
Par votre hôte deni usman:
Date: samedi 21 février 2009
Heure: 4h 00 - 5h 00 (GMT+00:00)
Invités:
* jorge...@yahoo.com
* leopoldoerne...@yahoo.com-br
You're totally right. I withdraw my complaint.
y
Yaron Minsky
On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Xavier Leroy 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:
Yaron Minsky wrote:
At
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 arra
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
Mike and Erick,
In some of my work, I've got code which is constantly creating and
multiplying 4x4 matrices (Lorentz transforms). I usually write in a
functional style, so I do not generally overwrite old matrices with
the multiplication results. I have discovered that, at these sizes,
it's abou
Erick, we should compare notes sometime. I have a lot of code for doing this
kind of stuff (I am working on empirical codon models with 61x61 rate
matrices). The right way to speed up matrix-vector operations is to use BLAS
via either Lacaml or ocamlgsl. But if, like me, you like to
counterproducti
Erick Matsen wrote:
> 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 s
Erick,
Sorry about the long email, but here is an explanation of what
"boxing" means, how it slows you down in this case, and how you can
(eventually) figure out whether it will slow you down in general. I'm
not an expert, so I've probably made mistakes in the following, but I
think the broad out
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
sequ
GODI includes now MinGW support, and pcre is among the actually working
packages. Just take it, or look there for how the build is done.
Note that you should take GODI for 3.10 because there is still a bug in
the 3.11 version.
Gerd
Am Freitag, den 20.02.2009, 14:28 + schrieb David Allsopp:
>
Am Freitag, den 20.02.2009, 10:40 -0600 schrieb Atmam Ta:
> 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 mult
> 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 th
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 c
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
2009/2/20 Atmam Ta :
> My question is: is ocaml good for parallel processing / hreaded computation,
> are there (mature) libraries or tools that let developers make use of
> multicore and multimachine environments?
For heavy-duty linear algebra you might want to use Lacaml:
http://ocaml.info/ho
Draft paper submission deadline extended: SETP-09
The deadline for draft paper submission at the 2009 International Conference on
Software Engineering Theory and Practice (SETP-09) (website:
http://www.PromoteResearch.org ) is extended due to numerous requests from the
authors. The conference
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 t
2009/2/20 Atmam Ta :
> 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 programabili
Atmam Ta writes:
> 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
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
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 compilatio
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 he
Daniel Bünzli a écrit :
Is it possible to disable the default rules ?
I'm using ocamlbuild for a plain C project with my own rules and it is
painfull when something fails that it fallbacks on ocaml C's compilation
rules. These rules wil anyway fail and they override the error that
occured wit
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 mo
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 these a
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
steps
Is it possible to disable the default rules ?
I'm using ocamlbuild for a plain C project with my own rules and it is
painfull when something fails that it fallbacks on ocaml C's
compilation rules. These rules wil anyway fail and they override the
error that occured with my rule that should
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 thes
28 matches
Mail list logo
