Skip to main content

compile - CompiledFunctionCall vs. LibraryFunction


When compiling code to C, and the compiled code calls other compiled functions, I see CompiledFunctionCall in the output of CompilePrint most of the time. But sometimes, it's replaced by LibraryFunction[<>,...]. Could anybody explain the difference between these two?


EDIT: As an example, I would expect a LibraryFunction call in the following case. If I define:


compBinomial=Compile[{{n,_Real},{k,_Real}},
Which[
k==0.||k==n,

1,
n==0.,
0,
k<=Quotient[n,2],
Product[(n+1-i)/i,{i,1,k}],
True,
Product[(n+1-i)/i,{i,1,n-k}]
]
,CompilationTarget->"C",RuntimeOptions->"Speed"
];


If I then define the following:


compsum=Compile[
{{n,_Integer},{m,_Integer},{j,_Integer}},
Round@Sum[
(-1)^k*compBinomial[n+m,n-k]*compBinomial[k+j,k]
,{k,0,n}]
,CompilationTarget->"C",RuntimeOptions->"Speed",
CompilationOptions->{"InlineExternalDefinitions" -> True,
"InlineCompiledFunctions"->False}

];

I see CompiledFunctionCall in the output of CompilePrint[compsum].



Answer



It appears that LibraryFunction occurs if the function being called inside the other compiled function is a function that has been compiled to C, provided this function has been called with the right type of arguments. It seems that in other cases there is a CompiledFunctionCall.


As pointed out by Simon Woods in the comments below, there is a type mismatch in the example that you added later, so that in this case CompiledFunctionCall is used.


Be warned that this is based on very few examples, so this may not be the correct explanation.


Here is a simple example where compiled functions are called with the right type of arguments. First we compile it to the WVM and then to C and observe the difference.


<< CompiledFunctionTools`
cf = Compile[{{x}}, Sin[x]];

cf5 = Compile[{{x}}, cf[x^2],
CompilationOptions -> {"InlineExternalDefinitions" -> True,
"InlineCompiledFunctions" -> False}];
cf5 // CompilePrint


...
R2 = CompiledFunctionCall[ Hold[CompiledFunction[{x}, Sin[x], \
-CompiledCode-]][ R1]]
...


cf2 = Compile[{{x}}, Sin[x], CompilationTarget -> "C"];
cf6 =
Compile[{{x}}, cf2[x^2],
CompilationOptions ->
{"InlineExternalDefinitions" -> True,
"InlineCompiledFunctions" -> False}
];
cf6 // CompilePrint



...
R2 = LibraryFunction[<>, compiledFunction12, {{Real, 0, Constant}}, \
Real][ R1]]
...

About LibraryFunction


In a compiled function that has been compiled to C, a LibraryFunction will do all the work. A library function is a function that is part of a dynamically linked library that is loaded into the kernel. The dynamically linked library is the result of compiling C code.


The following code creates an expression with head LibraryFunction. It does this by loading a pre-compiled function from a library.


fun = LibraryFunctionLoad["demo", "demo_I_I", {Integer}, Integer];

fun//Head


LibraryFunction

You can also see a LibraryFunction in the definition of cf2


cf2//InputForm


CompiledFunction[{10, 10.1, 

5468}, {_Real}, {{3, 0, 0}, {3, 0, 1}}, {}, {0, 0, 2, 0, 0},
{{40, 1, 3, 0, 0, 3, 0, 1}, {1}}, Function[{x}, Sin[x]], Evaluate,
LibraryFunction["path/compiledFunction12.dylib",
"compiledFunction12",
{{Real, 0, "Constant"}}, Real]]

In the definition of cf, no such LibraryFunction is present.


Skipping interaction with the CompiledFunction


The compilation process in Mathematica is smart enough to figure out that a compiled function is compiled to C, so it knows that it can simply call the LibraryFunction, rather than interacting with some CompiledFunction object. In fact we can do the same manually. Let


libFunc = cf2[[9]]



LibraryFunction[Function name: compiledFunction12 Argument count: 1]

So that we have defined libFunc as the LibraryFunction that does all the work for cf2.


Then we can do


libFunc[Pi]


 1.22465*10^-16


Conclusion


My guess is that this explains the difference. When calling a function that has been compiled to the WVM, a CompiledFunction is really called. When using a function that has been compiled to C, in the absence of a type mismatch,a shortcut is taken and the LibraryFunction is called directly.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.