Menu
▾
▴
matlisp-devel — Developers discussion list. Users can request stuff here as well.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(11) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(9) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2004 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2007 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
| 2010 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(7) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(31) |
Apr
(6) |
May
(6) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
(3) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Nicolas N. <Nic...@iw...> - 2003-10-14 17:31:40
|
Hello, the real part of a matrix is obtained by MATLISP:REAL which conflicts with the type COMMON-LISP:REAL when both MATLISP and COMMON-LISP are used in a defpackage form. I think that this should be possible without such problems. The naming is also not perfect because the function would better fit with CLs function REALPART. Therefore I suggest to change the name of REAL in MATLISP to MREALPART (or something else not colliding with COMMON-LISP symbols. One might keep an alias MATLISP:REAL (marked as deprecated) which is not exported. This might keep some existing code working in spite of this change. What do developers and users think about this? Nicolas. |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2003-09-20 06:24:39
|
Bugs item #749979, was opened at 2003-06-06 03:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=749979&group_id=4511 Category: distribution bugs Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: distribution .tgz is NOT compressed Initial Comment: the matlisp-1.0b.tgz file is in fact NOT compressed , rename to matlisp-1.0b.tar and then tar -xvf ... as usual. This is a nasty error , because most people will download and following the directions on the project homepage attempt to gunzip the file, this will fail and they will assume the file is broken or perhaps assume their download has been corrupted and fruitlessly try to redown load it. submitted by kin...@ya... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2003-09-20 02:24 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Are you sure? I just downloaded it with Mozilla Thunderbird and file says it's compressed, and gtar tvz works as expected. Perhaps you browser uncompressed it for you? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=749979&group_id=4511 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2003-06-06 07:18:58
|
Bugs item #749979, was opened at 2003-06-06 00:18 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=749979&group_id=4511 Category: distribution bugs Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: distribution .tgz is NOT compressed Initial Comment: the matlisp-1.0b.tgz file is in fact NOT compressed , rename to matlisp-1.0b.tar and then tar -xvf ... as usual. This is a nasty error , because most people will download and following the directions on the project homepage attempt to gunzip the file, this will fail and they will assume the file is broken or perhaps assume their download has been corrupted and fruitlessly try to redown load it. submitted by kin...@ya... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=749979&group_id=4511 |
|
From: Raymond T. <to...@rt...> - 2002-07-26 21:39:40
|
>>>>> "Raymond" == Raymond Toy <to...@rt...> writes:
Raymond> In any case, I think the following solves the immediate problem:
Raymond> (defmethod dot ((x complex-matrix) (y complex-matrix) &optional (conjugate-p t))
Raymond> (let* ((nxm (number-of-elements x))
Raymond> (store-x (store x))
Raymond> (store-y (store y))
Raymond> (dot (if conjugate-p
Raymond> (zdotc nxm store-x 1 store-y 1)
Raymond> (zdotu nxm store-x 1 store-y 1))))
Raymond> (if (zerop (imagpart dot))
Raymond> (realpart dot)
Raymond> (complex (realpart dot) (imagpart dot)))))
Raymond> I think this need to be fixed in ffi-cmu.lisp in some way. There's no
Raymond> telling what other bugs will be found because of this, if I'm right.
I've committed a fix to ffi-cmu.lisp. I'd appreciate it if you can
try it out. It works for me. :-)
I hope Tunc will try your example with ACL to see if the same bug
exists there.
Ray
|
|
From: Raymond T. <to...@rt...> - 2002-07-26 20:42:31
|
>>>>> "Raymond" == Raymond Toy <to...@rt...> writes:
>>>>> "Mike" == mak <ma...@ll...> writes:
Mike> Ray,
Mike> I may have spoken too soon. Yes, the SEGMENT violation is gone. However,
Mike> I stumbled upon this. I define three distinct vectors *WS*, *WD*, and D.
Mike> Then I compute the following
Mike> (dot *ws* d): 5.771771444577276d0
Mike> (dot *wd* d): #C(0.0d0 -8.946814341083627d0)
Mike> (/ (m:dot *wd* d) (m:dot *ws* d)): #C(1.0d0 0.0d0)
Mike> ==> THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN #C(0.0D0 -1.5500985142939754D0) <==
Mike> Now what? I'm clueless on how to track this one down.
Raymond> This is very, very weird. I'll look in to it. And actually, it's an
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is a compiler bug where it
thinks that the temp variable used to hold the result of zdotc/zdotu
is never modified. And since that temp variable is initialized to the
constant #c(0d0 0d0), it leaves it in a fixed place. Thus, the result
of zdotc is recycled over and over. We don't see it if you save the
intermediate result because a copy is made.
In any case, I think the following solves the immediate problem:
(defmethod dot ((x complex-matrix) (y complex-matrix) &optional (conjugate-p t))
(let* ((nxm (number-of-elements x))
(store-x (store x))
(store-y (store y))
(dot (if conjugate-p
(zdotc nxm store-x 1 store-y 1)
(zdotu nxm store-x 1 store-y 1))))
(if (zerop (imagpart dot))
(realpart dot)
(complex (realpart dot) (imagpart dot)))))
I think this need to be fixed in ffi-cmu.lisp in some way. There's no
telling what other bugs will be found because of this, if I'm right.
Ray
|
|
From: Raymond T. <to...@rt...> - 2002-07-26 17:27:37
|
>>>>> "Mike" == mak <ma...@ll...> writes:
Mike> Ray,
Mike> I may have spoken too soon. Yes, the SEGMENT violation is gone. However,
Mike> I stumbled upon this. I define three distinct vectors *WS*, *WD*, and D.
Mike> Then I compute the following
Mike> (dot *ws* d): 5.771771444577276d0
Mike> (dot *wd* d): #C(0.0d0 -8.946814341083627d0)
Mike> (/ (m:dot *wd* d) (m:dot *ws* d)): #C(1.0d0 0.0d0)
Mike> ==> THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN #C(0.0D0 -1.5500985142939754D0) <==
Mike> Now what? I'm clueless on how to track this one down.
This is very, very weird. I'll look in to it. And actually, it's an
error in (dot complex complex) since you've created *ws* and *wd* as
complex matrixes. Some weird problem since it computes the individual
dots correctly.
Ray
|
|
From: <ma...@ll...> - 2002-07-26 15:06:39
|
Ray,
I may have spoken too soon. Yes, the SEGMENT violation is gone. However,
I stumbled upon this. I define three distinct vectors *WS*, *WD*, and D.
Then I compute the following
(dot *ws* d): 5.771771444577276d0
(dot *wd* d): #C(0.0d0 -8.946814341083627d0)
(/ (m:dot *wd* d) (m:dot *ws* d)): #C(1.0d0 0.0d0)
==> THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN #C(0.0D0 -1.5500985142939754D0) <==
Now what? I'm clueless on how to track this one down.
mike
;;; Here is the test file I used...
(defparameter *ws*
(m:make-complex-matrix '(
0.1950
0.2268
0.3161
0.4467
0.5964
0.7425
0.8661
0.9544
1.000
1.000
0.9544
0.8661
0.7425
0.5964
0.4467
0.3161
0.2268
0.1950)))
(defparameter *wd*
(m:make-complex-matrix '(
0.2316
0.3783
0.6041
0.8240
0.9720
1.000
0.8755
0.5988
0.2126
-0.2126
-0.5988
-0.8755
-1.000
-0.9720
-0.8240
-0.6041
-0.3783
-0.2316 )))
(defparameter d
(m:make-complex-matrix '(
#C( -6.8643E-1 -7.2719E-1)
#C( -4.6423E-1 -8.8572E-1)
#C( -2.0744E-1 -9.7825E-1)
#C( 6.4808E-2 -9.9790E-1)
#C( 3.3222E-1 -9.4320E-1)
#C( 5.7489E-1 -8.1823E-1)
#C( 7.7472E-1 -6.3230E-1)
#C( 9.1684E-1 -3.9926E-1)
#C( 9.9064E-1 -1.3648E-1)
#C( 9.9064E-1 1.3648E-1)
#C( 9.1684E-1 3.9926E-1)
#C( 7.7472E-1 6.3230E-1)
#C( 5.7489E-1 8.1823E-1)
#C( 3.3222E-1 9.4320E-1)
#C( 6.4808E-2 9.9790E-1)
#C( -2.0744E-1 9.7825E-1)
#C( -4.6423E-1 8.8572E-1)
#C( -6.8643E-1 7.2719E-1))))
(format t "(dot ws d): ~A~%" (m:dot *ws* d))
(format t "(dot wd d): ~A~%" (m:dot *wd* d))
(format t "(/ (m:dot *wd* d) (m:dot *ws* d)): ~A~%" (/ (m:dot *wd* d) (m:dot *ws* d)))
|
|
From: Raymond T. <to...@rt...> - 2002-07-26 13:51:49
|
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael A Koerber <ma...@ll...> writes:
Michael> I noticed today that (DOT X Y) causes a segment violation whenever one
Michael> of X or Y is complex and the other is real.
Michael> I looked at DOT.LISP and noted that it hasn't changed in 2 years...I
Michael> can't believe its been broke that long. I've done no further
Michael> research.
What platform? I just tried this on my Solaris box using CMUCL 18d+
and I get 130 as the answer.
Ray
|
|
From: Michael A. K. <ma...@ll...> - 2002-07-26 13:40:04
|
I noticed today that (DOT X Y) causes a segment violation whenever one
of X or Y is complex and the other is real.
I looked at DOT.LISP and noted that it hasn't changed in 2 years...I
can't believe its been broke that long. I've done no further
research.
Is the problem obvious to someone else?
tnx
mike
;;; EXAMPLE OF PROBLEM
* (setf x (m:make-real-matrix (m:seq 0 5)) y (m:make-complex-matrix (m:seq 5 10)))
* (m:dot x y)
Error in function UNIX::SIGSEGV-HANDLER: Segmentation Violation at #x40331478.
Restarts:
0: [ABORT] Return to Top-Level.
Debug (type H for help)
(UNIX::SIGSEGV-HANDLER #<unused-arg>
#<unused-arg>
#.(SYSTEM:INT-SAP #x3FFFE8D0))
Source: Error finding source:
Error in function DEBUG::GET-FILE-TOP-LEVEL-FORM: Source file no longer exists:
target:code/signal.lisp.
0]
|
|
From: <he...@em...> - 2002-07-21 09:53:43
|
Dear Friends & Future Millionaires:
AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV:
Making over half a million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time.
THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET!
BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!!
Before you say "Bull", please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are "absolutely NO laws prohibiting the participation in the program."
DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY AND RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS
ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER.
PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 6 to 12 months easily and
comfortably,please read the following!.THEN READ IT AGAIN AND AGAIN!!!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME
TRUE, GUARANTEED!
INSTRUCTIONS:
Order all 5 reports on the list below:
For each report send:
* $5 cash
* The NUMBER and NAME of the report your are ordering
* Your e-mail address
To the person whose name appears on the list nest to the report name.
Make sure your return address is on your envelope top left corner in case of any US Mail problems.
When you place your order, be sure to order all 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports to save to your computer and resell them.
Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000s of people who will order them from you. Also, copy a set of the reports to floppy in case something happens to your computer.
************IMPORTANT*****************
DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or change their sequence on the list in any way other than what is instructed below in steps 1 through 6 or you will loose out on the majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested and if you alter it, it will NOT work.
Step 1: After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and
REMOVE the name & address of the person in Report #5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their cash.
Step 2: Move the name & address in Report #4 down to Report #5.
Step 3: Move the name & address in Report #3 down to Report #4.
Step 4: Move the name & address in Report #2 down to Report #3.
Step 5: Move the name & address in Report #1 down to Report #2.
Step 6: Insert YOUR name & address in the Report #1 position.
Please make sure you copy every name & address accurately!!!
To assist you with marketing your business on the Internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more!
There are two primary methods to get this venture going:
=======================================================================
METHOD # 1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY
Lets say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes. And we
will assume that you and those who join you send out only 5,000 e-mails
each. Lets also assume that the mailing receives only a 0.2% response
(the response could be much better, but lets just say its only 0.2%.
Also, many people will send out hundreds of thousands of e-mails instead of only 5,000 each).
Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails with a 0.2% response. That equals only 10 orders for Report #1 (Thats $50). Those 10 people who order Report #1, each send out 5,000 e-mails for a grand total of 50,000 e-mails. If only 0.2% respond with orders, you get 100 orders for report #2 (Thats $500). Those 100 who order Report #2 from you each send out 5,000 e-mails for a total of 500,000 e-mails. With a 0.2% response, you will receive 1000 order for Report #3(Thats $5,000). The 1000 people who order Report #3 from you send out 5,000 e-mails each generating a total of 5 million e-mails. With a 0.2% response, you would receive 10,000 orders for Report #4. Those 10,000 send 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50 million (50,000,000) e-mails. At a response rate of 0.2% this will generate 100,000 orders for Report #5 to you (or $500,000).
Your income in this example would be:
Report #1 50.00
Report #2 500.00
Report #3 5,000.00
Report #4 50,000.00
Report #5 500,000.00
Total $555,550.00
The numbers dont lie. Get a pencil & paper or calculator and figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you WILL make a lot of money!!!
REMEMBER, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE OUT OF 5,000 EMAILS YOU SEND
ORDER.
======================================================================
METHOD #2: PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET
Advertising on the Internet is very, very inexpensive and there are
hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the
Internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method #1 and add Method #2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report the ordered. Thats it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with YOUR name on it, will be prompt. And, they cant advertise until they receive the report.
AVAILABLE REPORTS
******PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW******
--Report #1: "The insiders guide to advertising for FREE on the Internet"
Order Report #1 from:
T. Matthew
12/7 John Street, Box Hill
Victoria 3128, Melbourne
Australia
--Report #2: "The insiders guide to sending bulk e-mail on the Internet"
Order Report #2 from:
Wei Peng
Blk 941, Tampines Ave 5, #04-219,
Singapore 520941
--Report #3: "The secret to Multi-Level Marketing on the Internet"
Order Report #3 from:
L. Kenny
Unit 6, 680 Inkerman Road,
Caulfield, Victoria 3161
Melbourne, Australia
--Report #4: "How to become a Millionaire using MLM & the Internet"
Order Report #4 from:
Jenelle
100 Normanby Road, Normanby House, Rm 162
Clayton, Victoria 3168, Melbourne
Australia
--Report #5: "How to send One Million e-mails for FREE"
Order Report #5 from:
Q. Peter
Albert Einstein Strasse 4-12
Haus Nr4, 02-02
42119
Wuppertal, Germany
******YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES******
Follow these rules of thumb to ensure your success:
* If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks,
continue sending e-mails until you do.
* After your first 10 orders, you should receive 100 or more orders for
Report #2 within 2 to 3 weeks. If not, continue sending e-mails and
advertising until you do.
* Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report #2, you can RELAX.
The system is already working for you and the cash will continue to roll-in.
THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER!
Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are being associated
with a DIFFERENT report. You can keep track of your progress by watching which report people are ordering from you.
If you want to generate more income, send another batch of e-mails and
start the whole process again. There is no limit to the income you can
generate from this business!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TESTIMONIALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"My name is Mitchell. My wife Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an
accountant with a major U.S. corporation and I make pretty good money.
When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving "Junk
Mail". I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the
population and the percentages involved. I knew?it wouldnt work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and a few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her and was ready to lay the old I told you so?on her when it didnt work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received a total of $147,200.00....all cash!!! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her hobby?"
Mitchell Wolf, Chicago, Illinois
"I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else....11 months passed then it luckily came again!. I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks."
Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y.
"It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $20,560.00 and by the end of the third month my total cash count was $362,840.00. Life is beautiful, thanks to the Internet."
Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: Section 301.
Per section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(c) of S. 1618,
To be removed from this list, type "Remove" in the subject line and send.
|
|
From: <no...@so...> - 2002-07-06 03:28:23
|
Bugs item #571340, was opened at 2002-06-19 17:35 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 Category: None Group: None >Status: Deleted Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: testing. Ignore Initial Comment: testing bug tracker. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2002-06-20 10:32 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Another test 3. Ignore me ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2002-06-20 10:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Another test 2. Ignore me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2002-06-20 10:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Another test. Ignore me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 |
|
From: Raymond T. <to...@rt...> - 2002-06-21 18:28:27
|
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael A Koerber <ma...@ll...> writes:
>> Instead of an array, I've decided to just do (push x seq) and then
>> (nreverse seq) at the end. This is quite fast for me.
Michael> Ray,
Michael> Yes...this worked faster for me is well. I've included it, w/ obvious mods,
Michael> in my local working src copy.
Michael> tnx for the quick response
Thank you for finding the bug, and testing out a new solution!
I'd check it into CVS but I can't seem to access it today.
Sourceforge problems, I guess.
I'll do it soon.
Ray
|
|
From: Michael A. K. <ma...@ll...> - 2002-06-21 18:20:16
|
> Instead of an array, I've decided to just do (push x seq) and then > (nreverse seq) at the end. This is quite fast for me. Ray, Yes...this worked faster for me is well. I've included it, w/ obvious mods, in my local working src copy. tnx for the quick response mike ************************************************** Dr Michael A. Koerber Micro$oft Free Zone MIT/Lincoln Laboratory ma...@ll... |
|
From: Raymond T. <to...@rt...> - 2002-06-21 16:09:44
|
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael A Koerber <ma...@ll...> writes:
Michael> I noted the following yesterday...
Michael> * (time (setf tmp (m:seq 0 32767) done 'done))
Michael> Evaluation took:
Michael> 45.28 seconds of real time
Michael> 44.78 seconds of user run time
Michael> 0.01 seconds of system run time
Michael> 2 page faults and
Michael> 785416 bytes consed.
Michael> DONE
Michael> Looking at SEQ.LISP I'd blame %PUSH-ON-END%. Due to time constraints
Michael> I did a quick hack to use an ARRAY and coerce it to a LIST on return.
Michael> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A GOOD FIX (the fastest and compatible with
Michael> other MATLISP internal uses or not), but it answered the mail for me
Michael> yesterday. This is the new timing...
Michael> * (time (setf tmp (seq 0 32767) done 'done))
Michael> Evaluation took:
Michael> 0.02 seconds of real time
Michael> 0.02 seconds of user run time
Michael> 0.0 seconds of system run time
Michael> 0 page faults and
Michael> 393224 bytes consed.
Michael> DONE
Michael> *
Thanks for the note! That is really bad.
Instead of an array, I've decided to just do (push x seq) and then
(nreverse seq) at the end. This is quite fast for me.
I've attached my proposed solution. It seems to be slightly faster
than your array solution and conses quite a bit less.
If you get a chance, let me know if this is better or not for you.
Ray
(defun seq (start step &optional end)
(when (not end)
(setq end step)
(setq step 1))
(let ((start (rationalize start))
(type (type-of step))
(step (rationalize step))
(end (rationalize end))
(seq nil))
(when (zerop step)
(error "STEP equal to 0"))
(do ((x start (+ x step)))
((if (> step 0)
(> x end)
(< x end))
(nreverse seq))
(push (coerce x type) seq))))
|
|
From: Michael A. K. <ma...@ll...> - 2002-06-21 13:58:33
|
I noted the following yesterday...
* (time (setf tmp (m:seq 0 32767) done 'done))
Evaluation took:
45.28 seconds of real time
44.78 seconds of user run time
0.01 seconds of system run time
2 page faults and
785416 bytes consed.
DONE
Looking at SEQ.LISP I'd blame %PUSH-ON-END%. Due to time constraints
I did a quick hack to use an ARRAY and coerce it to a LIST on return.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A GOOD FIX (the fastest and compatible with
other MATLISP internal uses or not), but it answered the mail for me
yesterday. This is the new timing...
* (time (setf tmp (seq 0 32767) done 'done))
Evaluation took:
0.02 seconds of real time
0.02 seconds of user run time
0.0 seconds of system run time
0 page faults and
393224 bytes consed.
DONE
*
FWIW the diffs and the new SEQ.LIST are attached. Note also that I
moved the check for STEP equal to zero earlier in the routine.
|
|
From: <no...@so...> - 2002-06-20 14:32:32
|
Bugs item #571340, was opened at 2002-06-19 17:35 You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: testing. Ignore Initial Comment: testing bug tracker. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2002-06-20 10:32 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Another test 3. Ignore me ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2002-06-20 10:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Another test 2. Ignore me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2002-06-20 10:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Another test. Ignore me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 |
|
From: <no...@so...> - 2002-06-20 14:26:07
|
Bugs item #571340, was opened at 2002-06-19 17:35 You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: testing. Ignore Initial Comment: testing bug tracker. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2002-06-20 10:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Another test 2. Ignore me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2002-06-20 10:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Another test. Ignore me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 |
|
From: <no...@so...> - 2002-06-20 14:06:37
|
Bugs item #571340, was opened at 2002-06-19 17:35 You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: testing. Ignore Initial Comment: testing bug tracker. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 2002-06-20 10:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Another test. Ignore me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 |
|
From: <no...@so...> - 2002-06-19 21:35:10
|
Bugs item #571340, was opened at 2002-06-19 17:35 You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: testing. Ignore Initial Comment: testing bug tracker. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104511&aid=571340&group_id=4511 |
|
From: <si...@EE...> - 2002-01-20 00:47:17
|
these changes have been checked in to cvs. thanks again, Tunc ----- Original Message ----- From: Claus Brunzema <ma...@cb...> Date: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:44 pm Subject: [Matlisp-devel] matlisp compilation problem and fix > Hello out there ! > > I had to make the following changes to the newest cvs version of > matlisp to get it to compile (with cmucl 18c on SuSE Linux 7.2). It > just adds a few missing exports (at least I think they were just > missing, maybe someone who knows the code better should take a close > look...) > > -----snip------- > diff -ru ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/packages.lisp matlisp/packages.lisp > --- ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/packages.lisp Mon Jan 14 > 23:33:16 2002 > +++ matlisp/packages.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:15:57 2002 > @@ -113,7 +113,9 @@ > #+:allegro (:use "COMMON-LISP" "FOREIGN-FUNCTIONS" "FORTRAN-FFI- > ACCESSORS") (:export > "DGESV" "DGEEV" "DGETRF" "DGESVD" > - "ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" )) > + "ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" > + "ZGEQRF" "ZUNGQR" "DGEQRF" "DORGQR" "DGEQP3" "ZGEQP3" > + )) > > (defpackage "DFFTPACK" > #+:cmu (:use "COMMON-LISP" "ALIEN" "C-CALL" "FORTRAN-FFI-ACCESSORS") > diff -ru ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/src/lapack.lisp > matlisp/src/lapack.lisp--- > ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/src/lapack.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:33:15 2002 > +++ matlisp/src/lapack.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:15:57 2002 > @@ -66,7 +66,9 @@ > #+:allegro (:use "COMMON-LISP" "FOREIGN-FUNCTIONS" "FORTRAN-FFI- > ACCESSORS") (:export > "DGESV" "DGEEV" "DGETRF" "DGESVD" > -"ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" )) > +"ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" > +"ZGEQRF" "ZUNGQR" "DGEQRF" "DORGQR" "DGEQP3" "ZGEQP3" > +)) > > (in-package "LAPACK") > > -----snip------- > > -- > Claus Brunzema <ma...@cb...> http://www.cbrunzema.de > > _______________________________________________ > Matlisp-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matlisp-devel > |
|
From: <si...@EE...> - 2002-01-17 01:45:56
|
Claus,
looks like your fix is exactly what was needed!
thanks. eventually, it should make its way
into the repository.
regards,
Tunc
----- Original Message -----
From: Claus Brunzema <ma...@cb...>
Date: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:44 pm
Subject: [Matlisp-devel] matlisp compilation problem and fix
> Hello out there !
>
> I had to make the following changes to the newest cvs version of
> matlisp to get it to compile (with cmucl 18c on SuSE Linux 7.2). It
> just adds a few missing exports (at least I think they were just
> missing, maybe someone who knows the code better should take a close
> look...)
>
> -----snip-------
> diff -ru ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/packages.lisp matlisp/packages.lisp
> --- ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/packages.lisp Mon Jan 14
> 23:33:16 2002
> +++ matlisp/packages.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:15:57 2002
> @@ -113,7 +113,9 @@
> #+:allegro (:use "COMMON-LISP" "FOREIGN-FUNCTIONS" "FORTRAN-FFI-
> ACCESSORS") (:export
> "DGESV" "DGEEV" "DGETRF" "DGESVD"
> - "ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" ))
> + "ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD"
> + "ZGEQRF" "ZUNGQR" "DGEQRF" "DORGQR" "DGEQP3" "ZGEQP3"
> + ))
>
> (defpackage "DFFTPACK"
> #+:cmu (:use "COMMON-LISP" "ALIEN" "C-CALL" "FORTRAN-FFI-ACCESSORS")
> diff -ru ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/src/lapack.lisp
> matlisp/src/lapack.lisp---
> ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/src/lapack.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:33:15 2002
> +++ matlisp/src/lapack.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:15:57 2002
> @@ -66,7 +66,9 @@
> #+:allegro (:use "COMMON-LISP" "FOREIGN-FUNCTIONS" "FORTRAN-FFI-
> ACCESSORS") (:export
> "DGESV" "DGEEV" "DGETRF" "DGESVD"
> -"ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" ))
> +"ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD"
> +"ZGEQRF" "ZUNGQR" "DGEQRF" "DORGQR" "DGEQP3" "ZGEQP3"
> +))
>
> (in-package "LAPACK")
>
> -----snip-------
>
> --
> Claus Brunzema <ma...@cb...> http://www.cbrunzema.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> Matlisp-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matlisp-devel
>
|
|
From: <si...@EE...> - 2002-01-17 01:45:28
|
Claus,
looks like your fix is exactly what was needed!
thanks. eventually, it should make its way
into the repository.
regards,
Tunc
----- Original Message -----
From: Claus Brunzema <ma...@cb...>
Date: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:44 pm
Subject: [Matlisp-devel] matlisp compilation problem and fix
> Hello out there !
>
> I had to make the following changes to the newest cvs version of
> matlisp to get it to compile (with cmucl 18c on SuSE Linux 7.2). It
> just adds a few missing exports (at least I think they were just
> missing, maybe someone who knows the code better should take a close
> look...)
>
> -----snip-------
> diff -ru ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/packages.lisp matlisp/packages.lisp
> --- ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/packages.lisp Mon Jan 14
> 23:33:16 2002
> +++ matlisp/packages.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:15:57 2002
> @@ -113,7 +113,9 @@
> #+:allegro (:use "COMMON-LISP" "FOREIGN-FUNCTIONS" "FORTRAN-FFI-
> ACCESSORS") (:export
> "DGESV" "DGEEV" "DGETRF" "DGESVD"
> - "ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" ))
> + "ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD"
> + "ZGEQRF" "ZUNGQR" "DGEQRF" "DORGQR" "DGEQP3" "ZGEQP3"
> + ))
>
> (defpackage "DFFTPACK"
> #+:cmu (:use "COMMON-LISP" "ALIEN" "C-CALL" "FORTRAN-FFI-ACCESSORS")
> diff -ru ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/src/lapack.lisp
> matlisp/src/lapack.lisp---
> ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/src/lapack.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:33:15 2002
> +++ matlisp/src/lapack.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:15:57 2002
> @@ -66,7 +66,9 @@
> #+:allegro (:use "COMMON-LISP" "FOREIGN-FUNCTIONS" "FORTRAN-FFI-
> ACCESSORS") (:export
> "DGESV" "DGEEV" "DGETRF" "DGESVD"
> -"ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" ))
> +"ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD"
> +"ZGEQRF" "ZUNGQR" "DGEQRF" "DORGQR" "DGEQP3" "ZGEQP3"
> +))
>
> (in-package "LAPACK")
>
> -----snip-------
>
> --
> Claus Brunzema <ma...@cb...> http://www.cbrunzema.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> Matlisp-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matlisp-devel
>
|
|
From: Claus B. <ma...@cb...> - 2002-01-14 22:44:11
|
Hello out there !
I had to make the following changes to the newest cvs version of
matlisp to get it to compile (with cmucl 18c on SuSE Linux 7.2). It
just adds a few missing exports (at least I think they were just
missing, maybe someone who knows the code better should take a close
look...)
-----snip-------
diff -ru ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/packages.lisp matlisp/packages.lisp
--- ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/packages.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:33:16 2002
+++ matlisp/packages.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:15:57 2002
@@ -113,7 +113,9 @@
#+:allegro (:use "COMMON-LISP" "FOREIGN-FUNCTIONS" "FORTRAN-FFI-ACCESSORS")
(:export
"DGESV" "DGEEV" "DGETRF" "DGESVD"
- "ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" ))
+ "ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD"
+ "ZGEQRF" "ZUNGQR" "DGEQRF" "DORGQR" "DGEQP3" "ZGEQP3"
+ ))
(defpackage "DFFTPACK"
#+:cmu (:use "COMMON-LISP" "ALIEN" "C-CALL" "FORTRAN-FFI-ACCESSORS")
diff -ru ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/src/lapack.lisp matlisp/src/lapack.lisp
--- ../work/nsci/matlisp.orig/src/lapack.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:33:15 2002
+++ matlisp/src/lapack.lisp Mon Jan 14 23:15:57 2002
@@ -66,7 +66,9 @@
#+:allegro (:use "COMMON-LISP" "FOREIGN-FUNCTIONS" "FORTRAN-FFI-ACCESSORS")
(:export
"DGESV" "DGEEV" "DGETRF" "DGESVD"
-"ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD" ))
+"ZGESV" "ZGEEV" "ZGETRF" "ZGESVD"
+"ZGEQRF" "ZUNGQR" "DGEQRF" "DORGQR" "DGEQP3" "ZGEQP3"
+))
(in-package "LAPACK")
-----snip-------
--
Claus Brunzema <ma...@cb...> http://www.cbrunzema.de
|
|
From: Paul W. <pw...@sn...> - 2001-11-07 22:57:18
|
| | 1. I have noticed that WITH-SLOTS used in conjunction with Matlisp and | an object defined by DEFSTRUCT doesn't always find the requested | slots. For example...if I start in package :USER all is well. | | (IN-PACKAGE :USER) | | ;;; a bunch of code to DEFSTRUCT etc | | (DEFUN DO-SOMETHING (PD) | (WITH-SLOTS (HEADING PITCH GPS-LATITUDE GPS-LONGITUDE) PD | ...)) | WITH-SLOTS on defstruct instances works best inside of DEFMETHOD forms, and accesses to the slots are well optimized by the compiler. I looked at why there were the problems you see in DEFUN forms but did not discover anything useful in the time I had available. Paul |
|
From: David M. <dm...@bo...> - 2001-11-07 17:26:08
|
"Michael A. Koerber" <ma...@ll...> wrote: > Hello all, > > 1. I have noticed that WITH-SLOTS used in conjunction with Matlisp and > an object defined by DEFSTRUCT doesn't always find the requested > slots. For example...if I start in package :USER all is well. According to ANSI, with slots doesn't have to work on structs. |
3 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
