If the zeros are known at compile time, LLVM may optimise away some
unnecessary operations:
julia> foo(x) = x + 0*(x*x + 2)
foo (generic function with 1 method)
julia> @code_llvm foo(1)
define i64 @julia_foo_21664(i64) {
top:
ret i64 %0
}
Unfortunately, this doesn't work as is with flo
My aim is to write a Hamiltonian MCMC sampler that samples bound and drift
parameter posteriors for bounded diffusion models while assuming some
parametric form for how these bounds and the drift change over time. This
requires the first and second derivative of the first-passage densities
that
Can you elaborate on why that kind of code needs this unusual evaluation?
It looks pretty reasonable as is to me.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Jan Drugowitsch wrote:
> Is this a toy reduction of a concept that you want to apply in a much more
>> complex way?
>>
>
> Yes, it was just meant to i
Depending on how much more complicated your actual use case is, could you not
just write f(a,b,c) = a*b + a*c instead of a*(b+c)? I guess the former would be
evaluated immediately at compile time if a is _zero ?
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 17:13:50 UTC+2, Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jan Drugowitsch > wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2 July 2015 16:55:33 UTC+2, Yichao Yu wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Tom Breloff wrote:
> >> > Just curious... is there a reason simply c
>
> Is this a toy reduction of a concept that you want to apply in a much more
> complex way?
>
Yes, it was just meant to illustrate the concept.
It should be applied to a function that has roughly the complexity of
https://github.com/jdrugo/DiffModels.jl/blob/master/src/fpt.jl#L153
(in fact,
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jan Drugowitsch wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 July 2015 16:55:33 UTC+2, Yichao Yu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Tom Breloff wrote:
>> > Just curious... is there a reason simply checking for non-zero isn't
>> > enough?
>> > Readability? Performance?
>> >
Is this a toy reduction of a concept that you want to apply in a much more
complex way?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jan Drugowitsch wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 July 2015 16:55:33 UTC+2, Yichao Yu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Tom Breloff wrote:
>> > Just curious... is there a r
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 16:55:33 UTC+2, Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Tom Breloff > wrote:
> > Just curious... is there a reason simply checking for non-zero isn't
> enough?
> > Readability? Performance?
> >
> > f(a,b,c) = (Bool(a) ? a * (b + c) : 0.0)
>
> I'm guessi
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Tom Breloff wrote:
> Just curious... is there a reason simply checking for non-zero isn't enough?
> Readability? Performance?
>
> f(a,b,c) = (Bool(a) ? a * (b + c) : 0.0)
I'm guessing he want all code that gets his type automatically gets
this behavior? If yes, I
Just curious... is there a reason simply checking for non-zero isn't
enough? Readability? Performance?
f(a,b,c) = (Bool(a) ? a * (b + c) : 0.0)
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 9:47:59 AM UTC-4, Jan Drugowitsch wrote:
>
> Dear Julia users,
>
> I am implementing an algorithm to solve a specific ty
11 matches
Mail list logo
