[Numpy-discussion] Problems with Numexpr and discontiguous arrays

Tim Hochberg tim.hochberg at ieee.org
Wed Oct 4 12:42:33 CDT 2006


David M. Cooke wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:19:08 -0700
> Tim Hochberg <tim.hochberg at ieee.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Ivan Vilata i Balaguer wrote:
>>     
>>> It seemed that discontiguous arrays worked OK in Numexpr since r1977 or
>>> so, but I have come across some alignment or striding problems which can
>>> be seen with the following code::
>>>       
>> I looked at this just a little bit and clearly this bit from interp_body 
>> cannot work in the presence of recor arrays:
>>
>> //....
>>         intp sf1 = sb1 / sizeof(double);        \
>> //...
>>         #define f1    ((double *)x1)[j*sf1]
>>
>>
>> There are clearly some assumptions that sb1 is evenly divisible by 
>> sizeof(double). Blech!. This is likely my fault, and I expect it won't 
>> be too horrible to fix, but I don't know that I'll have time immediately.
>>     
>
> My thinking is that this should be handled by a copy, so that the opcodes
> always work on contiguous data. The copy can be another opcode. One advantage
> of operating on contiguous data is that it's easier to use the processor's
> vector instructions, if applicable.
>   

That would be easy to do. Right now the opcodes should work correctly on 
data that is spaced in multiples of the itemsize on the last axis. Other 
arrays are copied (no opcode required, it's embedded at the top of 
interp_body lines 64-80). The record array case apparently slips through 
the cracks when we're checking whether an array is suitable to be used 
correctly (interpreter.c 1086-1103). It would certainly not be any 
harder to only allow contiguous arrays than to correctly deal with 
record arrays. Only question I have is whether the extra copy will 
overwhelm the savings of that operating on contiguous data gives.  The 
thing to do is probably try it and see what happens.

-tim






More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list