Performing operations on CUDA matrices while reading from a global Point - math

Hey there,
I have a mathematical function (multidimensional which means that there's an index which I pass to the C++-function on which single mathematical function I want to return. E.g. let's say I have a mathematical function like that:
f = Vector(x^2*y^2 / y^2 / x^2*z^2)
I would implement it like that:
double myFunc(int function_index)
{
switch(function_index)
{
case 1:
return PNT[0]*PNT[0]*PNT[1]*PNT[1];
case 2:
return PNT[1]*PNT[1];
case 3:
return PNT[2]*PNT[2]*PNT[1]*PNT[1];
}
}
whereas PNT is defined globally like that: double PNT[ NUM_COORDINATES ]. Now I want to implement the derivatives of each function for each coordinate thus generating the derivative matrix (columns = coordinates; rows = single functions). I wrote my kernel already which works so far and which call's myFunc().
The Problem is: For calculating the derivative of the mathematical sub-function i concerning coordinate j, I would use in sequential mode (on CPUs e.g.) the following code (whereas this is simplified because usually you would decrease h until you reach a certain precision of your derivative):
f0 = myFunc(i);
PNT[ j ] += h;
derivative = (myFunc(j)-f0)/h;
PNT[ j ] -= h;
now as I want to do this on the GPU in parallel, the problem is coming up: What to do with PNT? As I have to increase certain coordinates by h, calculate the value and than decrease it again, there's a problem coming up: How to do it without 'disturbing' the other threads? I can't modify PNT because other threads need the 'original' point to modify their own coordinate.
The second idea I had was to save one modified point for each thread but I discarded this idea quite fast because when using some thousand threads in parallel, this is a quite bad and probably slow (perhaps not realizable at all because of memory limits) idea.
'FINAL' SOLUTION
So how I do it currently is the following, which adds the value 'add' on runtime (without storing it somewhere) via preprocessor macro to the coordinate identified by coord_index.
#define X(n) ((coordinate_index == n) ? (PNT[n]+add) : PNT[n])
__device__ double myFunc(int function_index, int coordinate_index, double add)
{
//*// Example: f[i] = x[i]^3
return (X(function_index)*X(function_index)*X(function_index));
// */
}
That works quite nicely and fast. When using a derivative matrix with 10000 functions and 10000 coordinates, it just takes like 0.5seks. PNT is defined either globally or as constant memory like __constant__ double PNT[ NUM_COORDINATES ];, depending on the preprocessor variable USE_CONST.
The line return (X(function_index)*X(function_index)*X(function_index)); is just an example where every sub-function looks the same scheme, mathematically spoken:
f = Vector(x0^3 / x1^3 / ... / xN^3)
NOW THE BIG PROBLEM ARISES:
myFunc is a mathematical function which the user should be able to implement as he likes to. E.g. he could also implement the following mathematical function:
f = Vector(x0^2*x1^2*...*xN^2 / x0^2*x1^2*...*xN^2 / ... / x0^2*x1^2*...*xN^2)
thus every function looking the same. You as a programmer should only code once and not depending on the implemented mathematical function. So when the above function is being implemented in C++, it looks like the following:
__device__ double myFunc(int function_index, int coordinate_index, double add)
{
double ret = 1.0;
for(int i = 0; i < NUM_COORDINATES; i++)
ret *= X(i)*X(i);
return ret;
}
And now the memory accesses are very 'weird' and bad for performance issues because each thread needs access to each element of PNT twice. Surely, in such a case where each function looks the same, I could rewrite the complete algorithm which surrounds the calls to myFunc, but as I stated already: I don't want to code depending on the user-implemented function myFunc...
Could anybody come up with an idea how to solve this problem??
Thanks!

Rewinding back to the beginning and starting with a clean sheet, it seems you want to be able to do two things
compute an arbitrary scalar valued
function over an input array
approximate the partial derivative of an arbitrary scalar
valued function over the input array
using first order accurate finite differencing
While the function is scalar valued and arbitrary, it seems that there are, in fact, two clear forms which this function can take:
A scalar valued function with scalar arguments
A scalar valued function with vector arguments
You appeared to have started with the first type of function and have put together code to deal with computing both the function and the approximate derivative, and are now wrestling with the problem of how to deal with the second case using the same code.
If this is a reasonable summary of the problem, then please indicate so in a comment and I will continue to expand it with some code samples and concepts. If it isn't, I will delete it in a few days.
In comments, I have been trying to suggest that conflating the first type of function with the second is not a good approach. The requirements for correctness in parallel execution, and the best way of extracting parallelism and performance on the GPU are very different. You would be better served by treating both types of functions separately in two different code frameworks with different usage models. When a given mathematical expression needs to be implemented, the "user" should make a basic classification as to whether that expression is like the model of the first type of function, or the second. The act of classification is what drives algorithmic selection in your code. This type of "classification by algorithm" is almost universal in well designed libraries - you can find it in C++ template libraries like Boost and the STL, and you can find it in legacy Fortran codes like the BLAS.

Related

Replacing functions with Table Lookups

I've been watching this MSDN video with Brian Beckman and I'd like to better understand something he says:
Every imperitive programmer goes through this phase of learning that
functions can be replaced with table lookups
Now, I'm a C# programmer who never went to university, so perhaps somewhere along the line I missed out on something everyone else learned to understand.
What does Brian mean by:
functions can be replaced with table lookups
Are there practical examples of this being done and does it apply to all functions? He gives the example of the sin function, which I can make sense of, but how do I make sense of this in more general terms?
Brian just showed that the functions are data too. Functions in general are just a mapping of one set to another: y = f(x) is mapping of set {x} to set {y}: f:X->Y. The tables are mappings as well: [x1, x2, ..., xn] -> [y1, y2, ..., yn].
If function operates on finite set (this is the case in programming) then it's can be replaced with a table which represents that mapping. As Brian mentioned, every imperative programmer goes through this phase of understanding that the functions can be replaced with the table lookups just for performance reason.
But it doesn't mean that all functions easily can or should be replaced with the tables. It only means that you theoretically can do that for every function. So the conclusion would be that the functions are data because tables are (in the context of programming of course).
There is a lovely trick in Mathematica that creates a table as a side-effect of evaluating function-calls-as-rewrite-rules. Consider the classic slow-fibonacci
fib[1] = 1
fib[2] = 1
fib[n_] := fib[n-1] + fib[n-2]
The first two lines create table entries for the inputs 1 and 2. This is exactly the same as saying
fibTable = {};
fibTable[1] = 1;
fibTable[2] = 1;
in JavaScript. The third line of Mathematica says "please install a rewrite rule that will replace any occurrence of fib[n_], after substituting the pattern variable n_ with the actual argument of the occurrence, with fib[n-1] + fib[n-2]." The rewriter will iterate this procedure, and eventually produce the value of fib[n] after an exponential number of rewrites. This is just like the recursive function-call form that we get in JavaScript with
function fib(n) {
var result = fibTable[n] || ( fib(n-1) + fib(n-2) );
return result;
}
Notice it checks the table first for the two values we have explicitly stored before making the recursive calls. The Mathematica evaluator does this check automatically, because the order of presentation of the rules is important -- Mathematica checks the more specific rules first and the more general rules later. That's why Mathematica has two assignment forms, = and :=: the former is for specific rules whose right-hand sides can be evaluated at the time the rule is defined; the latter is for general rules whose right-hand sides must be evaluated when the rule is applied.
Now, in Mathematica, if we say
fib[4]
it gets rewritten to
fib[3] + fib[2]
then to
fib[2] + fib[1] + 1
then to
1 + 1 + 1
and finally to 3, which does not change on the next rewrite. You can imagine that if we say fib[35], we will generate enormous expressions, fill up memory, and melt the CPU. But the trick is to replace the final rewrite rule with the following:
fib[n_] := fib[n] = fib[n-1] + fib[n-2]
This says "please replace every occurrence of fib[n_] with an expression that will install a new specific rule for the value of fib[n] and also produce the value." This one runs much faster because it expands the rule-base -- the table of values! -- at run time.
We can do likewise in JavaScript
function fib(n) {
var result = fibTable[n] || ( fib(n-1) + fib(n-2) );
fibTable[n] = result;
return result;
}
This runs MUCH faster than the prior definition of fib.
This is called "automemoization" [sic -- not "memorization" but "memoization" as in creating a memo for yourself].
Of course, in the real world, you must manage the sizes of the tables that get created. To inspect the tables in Mathematica, do
DownValues[fib]
To inspect them in JavaScript, do just
fibTable
in a REPL such as that supported by Node.JS.
In the context of functional programming, there is the concept of referential transparency. A function that is referentially transparent can be replaced with its value for any given argument (or set of arguments), without changing the behaviour of the program.
Referential Transparency
For example, consider a function F that takes 1 argument, n. F is referentially transparent, so F(n) can be replaced with the value of F evaluated at n. It makes no difference to the program.
In C#, this would look like:
public class Square
{
public static int apply(int n)
{
return n * n;
}
public static void Main()
{
//Should print 4
Console.WriteLine(Square.apply(2));
}
}
(I'm not very familiar with C#, coming from a Java background, so you'll have to forgive me if this example isn't quite syntactically correct).
It's obvious here that the function apply cannot have any other value than 4 when called with an argument of 2, since it's just returning the square of its argument. The value of the function only depends on its argument, n; in other words, referential transparency.
I ask you, then, what the difference is between Console.WriteLine(Square.apply(2)) and Console.WriteLine(4). The answer is, there's no difference at all, for all intents are purposes. We could go through the entire program, replacing all instances of Square.apply(n) with the value returned by Square.apply(n), and the results would be the exact same.
So what did Brian Beckman mean with his statement about replacing function calls with a table lookup? He was referring to this property of referentially transparent functions. If Square.apply(2) can be replaced with 4 with no impact on program behaviour, then why not just cache the values when the first call is made, and put it in a table indexed by the arguments to the function. A lookup table for values of Square.apply(n) would look somewhat like this:
n: 0 1 2 3 4 5 ...
Square.apply(n): 0 1 4 9 16 25 ...
And for any call to Square.apply(n), instead of calling the function, we can simply find the cached value for n in the table, and replace the function call with this value. It's fairly obvious that this will most likely bring about a large speed increase in the program.

How to force an error if non-finite values (NA, NaN, or Inf) are encountered

There's a conditional debugging flag I miss from Matlab: dbstop if infnan described here. If set, this condition will stop code execution when an Inf or NaN is encountered (IIRC, Matlab doesn't have NAs).
How might I achieve this in R in a more efficient manner than testing all objects after every assignment operation?
At the moment, the only ways I see to do this are via hacks like the following:
Manually insert a test after all places where these values might be encountered (e.g. a division, where division by 0 may occur). The testing would be to use is.finite(), described in this Q & A, on every element.
Use body() to modify the code to call a separate function, after each operation or possibly just each assignment, which tests all of the objects (and possibly all objects in all environments).
Modify R's source code (?!?)
Attempt to use tracemem to identify those variables that have changed, and check only these for bad values.
(New - see note 2) Use some kind of call handlers / callbacks to invoke a test function.
The 1st option is what I am doing at present. This is tedious, because I can't guarantee I've checked everything. The 2nd option will test everything, even if an object hasn't been updated. That is a massive waste of time. The 3rd option would involve modifying assignments of NA, NaN, and infinite values (+/- Inf), so that an error is produced. That seems like it's better left to R Core. The 4th option is like the 2nd - I'd need a call to a separate function listing all of the memory locations, just to ID those that have changed, and then check the values; I'm not even sure this will work for all objects, as a program may do an in-place modification, which seems like it would not invoke the duplicate function.
Is there a better approach that I'm missing? Maybe some clever tool by Mark Bravington, Luke Tierney, or something relatively basic - something akin to an options() parameter or a flag when compiling R?
Example code Here is some very simple example code to test with, incorporating the addTaskCallback function proposed by Josh O'Brien. The code isn't interrupted, but an error does occur in the first scenario, while no error occurs in the second case (i.e. badDiv(0,0,FALSE) doesn't abort). I'm still investigating callbacks, as this looks promising.
badDiv <- function(x, y, flag){
z = x / y
if(flag == TRUE){
return(z)
} else {
return(FALSE)
}
}
addTaskCallback(stopOnNaNs)
badDiv(0, 0, TRUE)
addTaskCallback(stopOnNaNs)
badDiv(0, 0, FALSE)
Note 1. I'd be satisfied with a solution for standard R operations, though a lot of my calculations involve objects used via data.table or bigmemory (i.e. disk-based memory mapped matrices). These appear to have somewhat different memory behaviors than standard matrix and data.frame operations.
Note 2. The callbacks idea seems a bit more promising, as this doesn't require me to write functions that mutate R code, e.g. via the body() idea.
Note 3. I don't know whether or not there is some simple way to test the presence of non-finite values, e.g. meta information about objects that indexes where NAs, Infs, etc. are stored in the object, or if these are stored in place. So far, I've tried Simon Urbanek's inspect package, and have not found a way to divine the presence of non-numeric values.
Follow-up: Simon Urbanek has pointed out in a comment that such information is not available as meta information for objects.
Note 4. I'm still testing the ideas presented. Also, as suggested by Simon, testing for the presence of non-finite values should be fastest in C/C++; that should surpass even compiled R code, but I'm open to anything. For large datasets, e.g. on the order of 10-50GB, this should be a substantial savings over copying the data. One may get further improvements via use of multiple cores, but that's a bit more advanced.
The idea sketched below (and its implementation) is very imperfect. I'm hesitant to even suggest it, but: (a) I think it's kind of interesting, even in all of its ugliness; and (b) I can think of situations where it would be useful. Given that it sounds like you are right now manually inserting a check after each computation, I'm hopeful that your situation is one of those.
Mine is a two-step hack. First, I define a function nanDetector() which is designed to detect NaNs in several of the object types that might be returned by your calculations. Then, it using addTaskCallback() to call the function nanDetector() on .Last.value after each top-level task/calculation is completed. When it finds an NaN in one of those returned values, it throws an error, which you can use to avoid any further computations.
Among its shortcomings:
If you do something like setting stop(error = recover), it's hard to tell where the error was triggered, since the error is always thrown from inside of stopOnNaNs().
When it throws an error, stopOnNaNs() is terminated before it can return TRUE. As a consequence, it is removed from the task list, and you'll need to reset with addTaskCallback(stopOnNaNs) it you want to use it again. (See the 'Arguments' section of ?addTaskCallback for more details).
Without further ado, here it is:
# Sketch of a function that tests for NaNs in several types of objects
nanDetector <- function(X) {
# To examine data frames
if(is.data.frame(X)) {
return(any(unlist(sapply(X, is.nan))))
}
# To examine vectors, matrices, or arrays
if(is.numeric(X)) {
return(any(is.nan(X)))
}
# To examine lists, including nested lists
if(is.list(X)) {
return(any(rapply(X, is.nan)))
}
return(FALSE)
}
# Set up the taskCallback
stopOnNaNs <- function(...) {
if(nanDetector(.Last.value)) {stop("NaNs detected!\n")}
return(TRUE)
}
addTaskCallback(stopOnNaNs)
# Try it out
j <- 1:00
y <- rnorm(99)
l <- list(a=1:4, b=list(j=1:4, k=NaN))
# Error in function (...) : NaNs detected!
# Subsequent time consuming code that could be avoided if the
# error thrown above is used to stop its evaluation.
I fear there is no such shortcut. In theory on unix there is SIGFPE that you could trap on, but in practice
there is no standard way to enable FP operations to trap it (even C99 doesn't include a provision for that) - it is highly system-specifc (e.g. feenableexcept on Linux, fp_enable_all on AIX etc.) or requires the use of assembler for your target CPU
FP operations are nowadays often done in vector units like SSE so you can't be even sure that FPU is involved and
R intercepts some operations on things like NaNs, NAs and handles them separately so they won't make it to the FP code
That said, you could hack yourself an R that will catch some exceptions for your platform and CPU if you tried hard enough (disable SSE etc.). It is not something we would consider building into R, but for a special purpose it may be doable.
However, it would still not catch NaN/NA operations unless you change R internal code. In addition, you would have to check every single package you are using since they may be using FP operations in their C code and may also handle NA/NaN separately.
If you are only worried about things like division by zero or over/underflows, the above will work and is probably the closest to something like a solution.
Just checking your results may not be very reliable, because you don't know whether a result is based on some intermediate NaN calculation that changed an aggregated value which may not need to be NaN as well. If you are willing to discard such case, then you could simply walk recursively through your result objects or the workspace. That should not be extremely inefficient, because you only need to worry about REALSXP and not anything else (unless you don't like NAs either - then you'd have more work).
This is an example code that could be used to traverse R object recursively:
static int do_isFinite(SEXP x) {
/* recurse into generic vectors (lists) */
if (TYPEOF(x) == VECSXP) {
int n = LENGTH(x);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
if (!do_isFinite(VECTOR_ELT(x, i))) return 0;
}
/* recurse into pairlists */
if (TYPEOF(x) == LISTSXP) {
while (x != R_NilValue) {
if (!do_isFinite(CAR(x))) return 0;
x = CDR(x);
}
return 1;
}
/* I wouldn't bother with attributes except for S4
where attributes are slots */
if (IS_S4_OBJECT(x) && !do_isFinite(ATTRIB(x))) return 0;
/* check reals */
if (TYPEOF(x) == REALSXP) {
int n = LENGTH(x);
double *d = REAL(x);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) if (!R_finite(d[i])) return 0;
}
return 1;
}
SEXP isFinite(SEXP x) { return ScalarLogical(do_isFinite(x)); }
# in R: .Call("isFinite", x)

New to OCaml: How would I go about implementing Gaussian Elimination?

I'm new to OCaml, and I'd like to implement Gaussian Elimination as an exercise. I can easily do it with a stateful algorithm, meaning keep a matrix in memory and recursively operating on it by passing around a reference to it.
This statefulness, however, smacks of imperative programming. I know there are capabilities in OCaml to do this, but I'd like to ask if there is some clever functional way I haven't thought of first.
OCaml arrays are mutable, and it's hard to avoid treating them just like arrays in an imperative language.
Haskell has immutable arrays, but from my (limited) experience with Haskell, you end up switching to monadic, mutable arrays in most cases. Immutable arrays are probably amazing for certain specific purposes. I've always imagined you could write a beautiful implementation of dynamic programming in Haskell, where the dependencies among array entries are defined entirely by the expressions in them. The key is that you really only need to specify the contents of each array entry one time. I don't think Gaussian elimination follows this pattern, and so it seems it might not be a good fit for immutable arrays. It would be interesting to see how it works out, however.
You can use a Map to emulate a matrix. The key would be a pair of integers referencing the row and column. You'll want to use your own get x y function to ensure x < n and y < n though, instead of accessing the Map directly. (edit) You can use the compare function in Pervasives directly.
module OrderedPairs = struct
type t = int * int
let compare = Pervasives.compare
end
module Pairs = Map.Make (OrderedPairs)
let get_ n set x y =
assert( x < n && y < n );
Pairs.find (x,y) set
let set_ n set x y v =
assert( x < n && y < n );
Pairs.add (x,y) set v
Actually, having a general set of functions (get x y and set x y at a minimum), without specifying the implementation, would be an even better option. The functions then can be passed to the function, or be implemented in a module through a functor (a better solution, but having a set of functions just doing what you need would be a first step since you're new to OCaml). In this way you can use a Map, Array, Hashtbl, or a set of functions to access a file on the hard-drive to implement the matrix if you wanted. This is the really important aspect of functional programming; that you trust the interface over exploiting the side-effects, and not worry about the underlying implementation --since it's presumed to be pure.
The answers so far are using/emulating mutable data-types, but what does a functional approach look like?
To see, let's decompose the problem into some functional components:
Gaussian elimination involves a sequence of row operations, so it is useful first to define a function taking 2 rows and scaling factors, and returning the resultant row operation result.
The row operations we want should eliminate a variable (column) from a particular row, so lets define a function which takes a pair of rows and a column index and uses the previously defined row operation to return the modified row with that column entry zero.
Then we define two functions, one to convert a matrix into triangular form, and another to back-substitute a triangular matrix to the diagonal form (using the previously defined functions) by eliminating each column in turn. We could iterate or recurse over the columns, and the matrix could be defined as a list, vector or array of lists, vectors or arrays. The input is not changed, but a modified matrix is returned, so we can finally do:
let out_matrix = to_diagonal (to_triangular in_matrix);
What makes it functional is not whether the data-types (array or list) are mutable, but how they they are used. This approach may not be particularly 'clever' or be the most efficient way to do Gaussian eliminations in OCaml, but using pure functions lets you express the algorithm cleanly.

Efficiency of stack-based expression evaluation for math parsing

I have to write, for academic purposes, an application that plots user-input expressions like: f(x) = 1 - exp(3^(5*ln(cosx)) + x)
The approach I've chosen to write the parser is to convert the expression in RPN with the Shunting-Yard algorithm, treating primitive functions like "cos" as unary operators. This means the function written above would be converted in a series of tokens like:
1, x, cos, ln, 5, *,3, ^, exp, -
The problem is that to plot the function I have to evaluate it LOTS of times, so applying the stack evaluation algorithm for each input value would be very inefficient.
How can I solve this? Do I have to forget the RPN idea?
How much is "LOTS of times"? A million?
What kind of functions could be input? Can we assume they are continuous?
Did you try measuring how well your code performs?
(Sorry, started off with questions!)
You could try one of the two approaches (or both) described briefly below (there are probably many more):
1) Parse Trees.
You could create a Parse Tree. Then do what most compilers do to optimize expressions, constant folding, common subexpression elimination (which you could achieve by linking together the common expression subtrees and caching the result), etc.
Then you could use lazy evaluation techniques to avoid whole subtrees. For instance if you have a tree
*
/ \
A B
where A evaluates to 0, you could completely avoid evaluating B as you know the result is 0. With RPN you would lose out on the lazy evaluation.
2) Interpolation
Assuming your function is continuous, you could approximate your function to a high degree of accuracy using Polynomial Interpolation. This way you can do the complicated calculation of the function a few times (based on the degree of polynomial you choose), and then do fast polynomial calculations for the rest of the time.
To create the initial set of data, you could just use approach 1 or just stick to using your RPN, as you would only be generating a few values.
So if you use Interpolation, you could keep your RPN...
Hope that helps!
Why reinvent the wheel? Use a fast scripting language instead.
Integrating something like lua into your code will take very little time and be very fast.
You'll usually be able byte compile your expression, and that should result in code that runs very fast, certainly fast enough for simple 1D graphs.
I recommend lua as its fast, and integrates with C/C++ easier than any other scripting language. Another good options would be python, but while its better known I found it trickier to integrate.
Why not keep around a parse tree (I use "tree" loosely, in your case it's a sequence of operations), and mark input variables accordingly? (e.g. for inputs x, y, z, etc. annotate "x" with 0 to signify the first input variable, "y" with 1 to signify the 2nd input variable, etc.)
That way you can parse the expression once, keep the parse tree, take in an array of inputs, and apply the parse tree to evaluate.
If you're worrying about the performance aspects of the evaluation step (vs. the parsing step), I don't think you'd do much better unless you get into vectorizing (applying your parse tree on a vector of inputs at once) or hard-coding the operations into a fixed function.
What I do is use the shunting algorithm to produce the RPN. I then "compile" the RPN into a tokenised form that can be executed (interpretively) repeatedly without re-parsing the expression.
Michael Anderson suggested Lua. If you want to try Lua for just this task, see my ae library.
Inefficient in what sense? There's machine time and programmer time. Is there a standard for how fast it needs to run with a particular level of complexity? Is it more important to finish the assignment and move on to the next one (perfectionists sometimes never finish)?
All those steps have to happen for each input value. Yes, you could have a heuristic that scans the list of operations and cleans it up a bit. Yes, you could compile some of it down to assembly instead of calling +, * etc. as high level functions. You can compare vectorization (doing all the +'s then all the *'s etc, with a vector of values) to doing the whole procedure for one value at a time. But do you need to?
I mean, what do you think happens if you plot a function in gnuplot or Mathematica?
Your simple interpretation of RPN should work just fine, especially since it contains
math library functions like cos, exp, and ^(pow, involving logs)
symbol table lookup
Hopefully, your symbol table (with variables like x in it) will be short and simple.
The library functions will most likely be your biggest time-takers, so unless your interpreter is poorly written, it will not be a problem.
If, however, you really gotta go for speed, you could translate the expression into C code, compile and link it into a dll on-the-fly and load it (takes about a second). That, plus memoized versions of the math functions, could give you the best performance.
P.S. For parsing, your syntax is pretty vanilla, so a simple recursive-descent parser (about a page of code, O(n) same as shunting-yard) should work just fine. In fact, you might just be able to compute the result as you parse (if math functions are taking most of the time), and not bother with parse trees, RPN, any of that stuff.
I think this RPN based library can serve the purpose: http://expressionoasis.vedantatree.com/
I used it with one of my calculator project and it works well. It is small and simple, but extensible.
One optimization would be to replace the stack with an array of values and implement the evaluator as a three address mechine where each operation loads from two (or one) location and saves to a third. This can make for very tight code:
struct Op {
enum {
add, sub, mul, div,
cos, sin, tan,
//....
} op;
int a, b, d;
}
void go(Op* ops, int n, float* v) {
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
switch(ops[i].op) {
case add: v[op[i].d] = v[op[i].a] + v[op[i].b]; break;
case sub: v[op[i].d] = v[op[i].a] - v[op[i].b]; break;
case mul: v[op[i].d] = v[op[i].a] * v[op[i].b]; break;
case div: v[op[i].d] = v[op[i].a] / v[op[i].b]; break;
//...
}
}
}
The conversion from RPN to 3-address should be easy as 3-address is a generalization.

Change a Recursive function that has a for loop in it into an iterative function?

So I have this function that I'm trying to convert from a recursive algorithm to an iterative algorithm. I'm not even sure if I have the right subproblems but this seems to determined what I need in the correct way, but recursion can't be used you need to use dynamic programming so I need to change it to iterative bottom up or top down dynamic programming.
The basic recursive function looks like this:
Recursion(i,j) {
if(i > j) {
return 0;
}
else {
// This finds the maximum value for all possible
// subproblems and returns that for this problem
for(int x = i; x < j; x++) {
if(some subsection i to x plus recursion(x+1,j) is > current max) {
max = some subsection i to x plus recursion(x+1,j)
}
}
}
}
This is the general idea, but since recursions typically don't have for loops in them I'm not sure exactly how I would convert this to iterative. Does anyone have any ideas?
You have a recursive function that can be summarised as this:
recursive(i, j):
if stopping condition:
return value
loop:
if test current value involving recursive call passes:
set value based on recursive call
return value # this appears to be missing from your example
(I am going to be pretty loose with the pseudo code here, to emphasize the structure of the code rather than the specific implementation)
And you want to flatten it to a purely iterative approach. First it would be good to describe exactly what this involves in the general case, as you seem to be interested in that. Then we can move on to flattening the pseudo code above.
Now flattening a primitive recursive function is quite straightforward. When you are given code that is like:
simple(i):
if i has reached the limit: # stopping condition
return value
# body of method here
return simple(i + 1) # recursive call
You can quickly see that the recursive calls will continue until i reaches the predefined limit. When this happens the value will be returned. The iterative form of this is:
simple_iterative(start):
for (i = start; i < limit; i++):
# body here
return value
This works because the recursive calls form the following call tree:
simple(1)
-> simple(2)
-> simple(3)
...
-> simple(N):
return value
I would describe that call tree as a piece of string. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The different calls occur at different points on the string.
A string of calls like that is very like a for loop - all of the work done by the function is passed to the next invocation and the final result of the recursion is just passed back. The for loop version just takes the values that would be passed into the different calls and runs the body code on them.
Simple so far!
Now your method is more complex in two ways:
There are multiple separate statements that make recursive calls
Those statements themselves are within a for loop
So your call tree is something like:
recursive(i, j):
for (v in 1, 2, ... N):
-> first_recursive_call(i + v, j):
-> ... inner calls ...
-> potential second recursive call(i + v, j):
-> ... inner calls ...
As you can see this is not at all like a string. Instead it really is like a tree (or a bush) in that each call results in two more calls. At this point it is actually very hard to turn this back into an entirely iterative function.
This is because of the fundamental relationship between loops and recursion. Any loop can be restated as a recursive call. However not all recursive calls can be transformed into loops.
The class of recursive calls that can be transformed into loops are called primitive recursion. Your function initially appears to have transcended that. If this is the case then you will not be able to transform it into a purely iterative function (short of actually implementing a call stack and similar within your function).
This video explains the difference between primitive recursion and fundamentally recursive types that follow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7sm9dzFtEI
I would add that your condition and the value that you assign to max appear to be the same. If this is the case then you can remove one of the recursive calls, allowing your function to become an instance of primitive recursion wrapped in a loop. If you did so then you might be able to flatten it.
well unless there is an issue with the logic not included yet, it should be fine
for & while are ok in recursion
just make sure you return in every case that may occur

Resources