Skip to main content

numerics - Why is MainEvaluate being used when LinearSolve can be compiled?


According to this question LinearSolve can be compiled. However, CompilePrint[] shows a call to MainEvaluate[] but no warning is generated. It appears that LinearSolve is not compilable, given the presence of MainEvaluate[]. But the lack of any warning is surprising. Something more subtle appears to be going on. Consider the following.


In[1]:= SetSystemOptions[
"CompileOptions" -> "CompileReportExternal" -> True];

In[2]:= << CompiledFunctionTools`

In[3]:= v2 = Compile[{{m, _Real, 2}, {v, _Real, 1}},
LinearSolve[m, v]

];


In[4]:= CompilePrint[v2]

Out[4]= "
2 arguments
3 Tensor registers
Underflow checking off
Overflow checking off

Integer overflow checking on
RuntimeAttributes -> {}

T(R2)0 = A1
T(R1)1 = A2
Result = T(R1)2

1 T(R1)2 = MainEvaluate[ Hold[LinearSolve][ T(R2)0, T(R1)1]]
2 Return
"


There are no warnings generated, but I am not sure why there is a call to MainEvaluate[] in the CompilePrint.


There is a much clearer warning that compiling fails when one uses options within LinearSolve while attempting to compile. Consider the following:


In[5]:= v3 = Compile[{{m, _Real, 2}, {v, _Real, 1}},
LinearSolve[m, v, Method -> "Cholesky"]
]

During evaluation of In[5]:= Compile::extscalar: Method->Cholesky cannot
be compiled and will be evaluated externally.
The result is assumed to be of type Integer. >>


During evaluation of In[5]:= Compile::exttensor: LinearSolve[m,v,Method->Cholesky]
cannot be compiled and will be evaluated externally.
The result is assumed to be a rank 2 tensor of type Real. >>

Also, CompilePrint[] gives the following:


In[6]:= CompilePrint[v3]

Out[6]= "
2 arguments

1 Integer register
3 Tensor registers
Underflow checking off
Overflow checking off
Integer overflow checking on
RuntimeAttributes -> {}

T(R2)0 = A1
T(R1)1 = A2
Result = T(R2)2


1 T(R2)2 = MainEvaluate[ Function[{m, v}, LinearSolve[m, v,
Method -> Cholesky]][ T(R2)0, T(R1)1]]
2 Return
"

Questions:



  • If LinearSolve can't be compiled, why is there no warning in the default case? Is there something more subtle going on (e.g. some parts of the process are compiled)?

  • If yes, how can one use the Method option within the Compiled function to ensure that what can be compiled actually is?




Answer



acl already posted the crucial information needed to solve this conundrum (i.e., the definition of Internal`CompileValues[LinearSolve]), but wishes to delete his post since he had not interpreted it to give the complete answer. Therefore I re-post the following observation along with a summary of what it means.


The input,


Internal`CompileValues[];
ClearAttributes[Internal`CompileValues, ReadProtected];
Internal`CompileValues[LinearSolve]

yields:


HoldPattern[Internal`CompileValues[LinearSolve]] :> {

HoldPattern[
LinearSolve[
System`CompileDump`x_?(Internal`TensorTypeQ[Real, {_, _}]),
System`CompileDump`b_?(Internal`TensorTypeQ[Real, {_}])]
] :> _?(Internal`TensorTypeQ[Real, {_}]),
HoldPattern[
LinearSolve[
System`CompileDump`x_?(Internal`TensorTypeQ[Complex, {_, _}]),
System`CompileDump`b_?(Internal`TensorTypeQ[Complex, {_}])]
] :> _?(Internal`TensorTypeQ[Complex, {_}])

}

Briefly put, this tells us that when the compiler sees a function call like LinearSolve[x, b], it knows that:



  • when x is a real matrix and b is a real vector, the result is a real vector

  • when x is a complex matrix and b is a complex vector, the result is a complex vector


As a result of this knowledge, the compiler is able to determine what type of register is needed to store the return value from LinearSolve in these two cases. This is important if further operations are then carried out on the result: in the absence of type information, all subsequent operations on LinearSolve's return value would need to be performed via the interpreter using MainEvaluate for full generality, but because the type of the result is predetermined, such operations can be compiled instead. However, since LinearSolve is a highly optimized top-level function, compilation does not offer any benefit outside of this scenario, and so knowing the return type has no value if LinearSolve[x, b] is the entire contents of the compiled function, since the operation may as well have been performed via the interpreter anyway.


As regards why LinearSolve[x, b, Method -> m] produces a message: it is because the definition for Internal`CompileValues[LinearSolve] does not provide for pattern matching against LinearSolve calls when any Method is specified. It handles only the form LinearSolve[x, b].


Conclusion



Just because Internal`CompileValues[func] is defined for some function func, one cannot assume that func can be called directly from compiled code without using a MainEvaluate call. It simply means that the compiler has information about func which it can incorporate into the compilation process as a whole.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...

functions - What best practices or performance considerations are there for choosing between Cases, Position, Pick and Select?

Cases , Select , Pick and Position each have different syntaxes and purposes, but there are times when you can express the same calculation equivalently using either of them. So with this input: test = RandomInteger[{-25, 25}, {20, 2}] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {-8, -19}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {-3, -25}, {21, -18}, {4, 4}, {2, -2}, {-24, 8}, {-17, -8}, {4, -18}, {22, -24}, {-4, -3}, {21, 0}, {19, 18}, {-23, -8}, {23, -25}, {14, -2}, {-1, -13}} You can get the following equivalent results: Cases[test, {_, _?Positive}] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {4, 4}, {-24, 8}, {19, 18}} Select[test, #[[2]] > 0 &] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {4, 4}, {-24, 8}, {19, 18}} Pick[test, Sign[test[[All, 2]] ], 1] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {4, 4}, {-24, 8}, {19, 18}} test[[Flatten@Position[test[[All, 2]], _?Positive] ]] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {4, 4}, {-24, 8}, {19, 18}} Are there performance or other considerations that should guide which you shou...