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 - 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 - 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 - 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....