[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: small integers
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com (Jim Allard)
- Subject: Re: small integers
- From: Robert A. Cassels <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 16:43:03 -0400
- Sender: email@example.com
>Scott Fahlman writes:
> I think it would be a serious mistake for the Dylan language to include a
> required list of numeric optimizations at this early point (or any time
> very soon). Until we all get some experience with this, it won't be clear
> what is easy, what is straightforward but perhaps too expensive for small
> implementations, and what is very hard. At present, we don't yet have a
> complete system of types and declarations, or even full agreement on how to
> handle bignums/integer-overflow.
Based on the technology available today, I expect there will be a
significant performance difference between "small implementations" and more
aggressive implementations. I hope that groups like CMU will come up with
new technologies that will enable smaller high-performance implementations.
But I believe that using currently-available technology, we'll be able to
get excellent performance from (larger) Dylan systems.
I agree that we're not ready for a "required list of ... optimizations."
But it's probably not too early to have some terminology to distinguish
between "aggressive, professional-quality" implementations and "small,
clean" implementations. My first thought was "Professional Dylan" vs.
"Academic Dylan", but Scott and his group could rightly take exception.
Any better ideas?
>Jim Allard replies:
>I agree that it is not easy to get optimized numerics done right within the
>Common Lisp numerics system, either as a language designer or as a
>programmer. I have a group of experienced Common Lisp programmers here, and
>many of them are still not confident in their ability to write numeric
>operations that will be deemed acceptable for optimization by the compilers
>we use. This was such a problem that we had to write macros for fixnum and
>double-float numeric operations that we knew would work, and so our
>programmers now use those macros to get optimized arithmetic.
I agree that the Common Lisp numerics experience overall has been less than
satisfactory. Certainly there have been notable successes with particular
implementations (Lisp machines, Python, etc.) but portable high efficiency
is awkward to impossible. [Once upon a time I was a Fortran hacker, so I'd
like to do numerics well in Dylan.] Numerics is one of many Common Lisp
areas whose deficiencies we are trying to address with Dylan.
>[some discussion elided]
>The following lists some sets of optimizations I would be interested in
>1) Compile-time method selection.
>Given adequate calls to seal, calls to make-read-only, and type declarations
>at a method call site, then a specific method is chosen and the call to it is
>staticly compiled in, or even in-lined for simple methods such as slot value
>access. This optimizes away run-time type dispatching. (This is what I
>think Dylan designers are attempting around seal and make-read-only, though I
>couldn't find it spelled out in detail within the Dylan manual.)
Indeed that's the intent, and our implementations do a lot of compile-time
method selection. I don't know whether the language manual is the place to
spell out such things -- we'd like to keep the language definition as short
as possible. But of course we should make it clear somehow. Any ideas?
>2) Unboxed intermediate arithmetic values.
>Given that compile-time method selection succeeded, intermediate results of
>nested fixnum and double-float operations are passed from one operation to
>the next without boxing. This optimizes away possibly expensive consing
>operations, makes the expression itself faster and also reduces the load the
>garbage collector imposes on an application.
Our implementations do this in many cases, and we expect to extend it
>Determining numeric type of intermediate values of double-float expressions
>can be done without intermediate declaration since contagion between double-
>floats always produces double-floats. (Would any experts please verify this?
>I'm fairly certain this always holds.) For fixnums, it can be determined (by
>a *sufficiently smart* compiler) that intermediate values don't exceed the
>range of fixnums given tighter range restrictions on arguments to an
>expression. These tighter bounds can be inferred when using Dylan's
>iteration over ranges, though an extention to the type system to declare
>ranges on integer types would provide this through a broader means. Even
>given fixnum range-restricted type declarations, a means is needed to assert
>types of intermediate values. Without it, Dylan users will be stuffing
>intermediate values back into fixnum type declared lexical variables to get
>an implicit type declaration of the expression's return value.
For floats of concrete type (<double-float>, etc.) arithmetic operations
(+, -, *, /) are closed. Currently, functions such as SQRT can return
complex numbers given <real> inputs, so <double-float> isn't closed under
SQRT. We expect to address this in some way -- maybe by redefining SQRT,
or by some other means.
For integers, you note the obvious problems and some solutions.
Limited-range types are currently under consideration.
>3) Unboxed lexical variable contents.
>Given local variables that are type declared as fixnum or double-float, the
>memory for that location is allocated to hold the value in its unboxed form.
>Uses of the variable value for compile-time method selected expressions with
>unboxed intermediate values would use the unboxed value from this variable
>directly. Uses of the variable value for other purposes would cause a boxing
>of the value before use. Like #2, this optimizes away consing operations.
We have plans to support this, and partial support already in our
implementations. Also under consideration are support for unboxed slots,
sequence and array elements, and module variables.
>4) Unboxed method arguments and return values.
>Given a user-defined (i.e. not built-in) method that takes fixnum or
>double-float arguments, and returns values that can be determined at compile
>time to be fixnum or double-float, and given a compile-time selected call to
>the method, then the fixnum arguments and return values for this call are
>passed in their unboxed form. Like #2 and #3, this optimizes away consing
Already under consideration.
>Chris Fry writes:
> I agree that there is no contradiction here [between correct programs and
> fast programs]. In fact there's even a strong relationship between the two
> in that there's nothing slower than a broken program.
>I don`t mean to jump all over you, Chris, but the sad fact is that there is a
>flippant dismissal of performance issues among many high level language
>proponents. In my view, more than anything else, the reputation of Common
>Lisp as fat and slow prevented its commercial success and fueled the flight
>of expert systems products from Lisp to C, and numeric performance was the
>example I heard most often from people arguing against Lisp.
>It doesn't matter that Common Lisp implementations have now mainly got those
>issues under control. A bad reputation has become firmly entrenched in the
>marketplace. And it is still true that smart, well-meaning users of that
>language have a hard time using it correctly.
>If the Dylan designers mean what was said in the introduction to the manual
>about targeting C, C++, and Pascal users, that compatibility with Lisps is
>not a primary goal, and that they would "leave out anything that we do not
>know how to implement efficiently in both space and time", then I think this
>numerics issue qualifies as a problem area deserving of attention.
Indeed we are paying attention, and we agree that these are important
>Well, I've blathered on more than I planned here. I don't mean to tell the
>Dylan designers how to do their jobs, and I don't diminish in any way the
>difficulty of the task set before them. I've just gone through a lot with
>Common Lisp numerics and so have some strong opinions in this area.
We certainly appreciate your thoughtful concern, and your taking the time
to express your opinions.