search for: nbatch

...acro, it seems redundant to define etype and vtype for they have to match > the type of the SEXP. I'm wondering if this is intentional? Will there be a > type-free macro in R in the future? Here is a simple type-free macro I'm > using. > > #define type_free_iter(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch,expr)\ > > switch(TYPEOF(sx)){\ > > case INTSXP:\ > > ITERATE_BY_REGION(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch, int, INTEGER, expr);\ > > break; \ > > case REALSXP:\ > > ITERATE_BY_REGION(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch, double, REAL, expr);\ > > break; \ &g...

Hi devel team, I'm working on C/C++ level ALTREP compatibility for a package. The package previously used pointers to access the data of a SEXP, so it would not work for some ALTREP objects which do not have a pointer. I plan to rewrite the code and use functions like get_elt, get_region, and get_subset to access the values of a vector, so I have a few questions for ALTREP: 1. Since an

...first argument in the macro, it seems redundant to define etype and vtype for they have to match the type of the SEXP. I'm wondering if this is intentional? Will there be a type-free macro in R in the future? Here is a simple type-free macro I'm using. #define type_free_iter(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch,expr)\ switch(TYPEOF(sx)){\ case INTSXP:\ ITERATE_BY_REGION(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch, int, INTEGER, expr);\ break; \ case REALSXP:\ ITERATE_BY_REGION(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch, double, REAL, expr);\ break; \ case LGLSXP:\ ITERATE_BY_REGION(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch, in...

...they have to > match > >> the type of the SEXP. I'm wondering if this is intentional? Will there > be a > >> type-free macro in R in the future? Here is a simple type-free macro I'm > >> using. > >> > >> #define type_free_iter(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch,expr)\ > >> > >> switch(TYPEOF(sx)){\ > >> > >> case INTSXP:\ > >> > >> ITERATE_BY_REGION(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch, int, INTEGER, expr);\ > >> > >> break; \ > >> > >> case REALSXP:\ > >> >...

...ant to define etype and vtype for they have to match >> the type of the SEXP. I'm wondering if this is intentional? Will there be a >> type-free macro in R in the future? Here is a simple type-free macro I'm >> using. >> >> #define type_free_iter(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch,expr)\ >> >> switch(TYPEOF(sx)){\ >> >> case INTSXP:\ >> >> ITERATE_BY_REGION(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch, int, INTEGER, expr);\ >> >> break; \ >> >> case REALSXP:\ >> >> ITERATE_BY_REGION(sx, ptr, ind, nbatch,...

...ot;), e0)); SEXP res = PROTECT(eval(e, env)); int ans = asLogical(res); UNPROTECT(3); return ans == 1; // so NA answer is false. } R_xlen_t i, n = xlength(x); switch (xT) { case REALSXP: { if(REAL_NO_NA(x)) return FALSE; ITERATE_BY_REGION(x, xD, i, nbatch, double, REAL, { for (int k = 0; k < nbatch; k++) if (ISNAN(xD[k])) return TRUE; }); break; } [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

...R_xlen_t nb = __ibr_n__; \ for (R_xlen_t idx = strt; idx < __ibr_n__; idx += nb) { \ expr \ } \ } \ else ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL0(sx, px, idx, nb, etype, vtype, \ strt, nfull, expr); \ } while (0) // [[Rcpp::export]] void C_testPrint(SEXP x) { ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL(x, ptr, idx, nbatch, double, REAL, 1, 4, { for (R_xlen_t i = 0; i < nbatch; i++) Rprintf("idx: %lld, i: %lld, ptr:%f\n", idx, i, ptr[i]); }); } ``` The function C_testPrint loops over its argument x and prints out one value of x at each loop. The loop starts from the second element and ends in the fifth...

...nb) { \ >> expr \ >> ???? } \ >> } \ >> else ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL0(sx, px, idx, nb, etype, vtype, \ >> strt, nfull, expr); \ >> ???? } while (0) >> // [[Rcpp::export]] >> void C_testPrint(SEXP x) { >> ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL(x, ptr, idx, nbatch, double, REAL, 1, 4, { >> for (R_xlen_t i = 0; i < nbatch; i++) >> Rprintf("idx: %lld, i: %lld, ptr:%f\n", idx, i, ptr[i]); > > You need to index "ptr" by "idx + i", not by "i". Have a look at how > the macros are used in R, e.g. prin...

...eta))) logq <- ifelse(eta < 0, - log1p(exp(eta)), - eta - log1p(exp(- eta))) logl <- sum(logp[y == 1]) + sum(logq[y == 0]) val <- logl - sum(beta^2) / 2 return(val) } beta.initial <- as.vector(out$coefficients) out <- metrop(ludfun, initial = beta.initial, nbatch = 20, blen = 10, nspac = 5, scale = 0.56789) ### Works fine. Here are the Monte Carlo estimates of the posterior ### means for each parameter with Monte Carlo standard errors. apply(out$batch, 2, mean) sqrt(apply(out$batch, 2, function(x) initseq(x)$var.con) / out$nbatch) ### Now supp...

...1, SORTED_INCR_NA_1ST = 2, KNOWN_UNSORTED = 0}; The macro names are pretty self-explanatory. The current implementation only supports the ascending sort. 2. For anyNA, it goes to(Real SEXP) ===========coerce.c=========== if(REAL_NO_NA(x)) return FALSE; ITERATE_BY_REGION(x, xD, i, nbatch, double, REAL, { for (int k = 0; k < nbatch; k++) if (ISNAN(xD[k])) return TRUE; }); ===========altrep.c=========== int REAL_NO_NA(SEXP x) { return ALTREP(x) ? ALTREAL_DISPATCH(No_NA, x) : 0; } If the argument x is not an ALTREP, the function will return 0, and a default method will...

...x = strt; idx < __ibr_n__; idx += nb) { \ > expr \ > } \ > } \ > else ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL0(sx, px, idx, nb, etype, vtype, \ > strt, nfull, expr); \ > } while (0) > // [[Rcpp::export]] > void C_testPrint(SEXP x) { > ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL(x, ptr, idx, nbatch, double, REAL, 1, 4, { > for (R_xlen_t i = 0; i < nbatch; i++) > Rprintf("idx: %lld, i: %lld, ptr:%f\n", idx, i, ptr[i]); You need to index "ptr" by "idx + i", not by "i". Have a look at how the macros are used in R, e.g. printvector.c. Best, Toma...

...nt ans = asLogical(res); > UNPROTECT(3); > return ans == 1; // so NA answer is false. > } > > R_xlen_t i, n = xlength(x); > switch (xT) { > case REALSXP: > { > if(REAL_NO_NA(x)) > return FALSE; > ITERATE_BY_REGION(x, xD, i, nbatch, double, REAL, { > for (int k = 0; k < nbatch; k++) > if (ISNAN(xD[k])) > return TRUE; > }); > break; > } >

...} \ > >> } \ > >> else ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL0(sx, px, idx, nb, etype, vtype, \ > >> strt, nfull, expr); \ > >> } while (0) > >> // [[Rcpp::export]] > >> void C_testPrint(SEXP x) { > >> ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL(x, ptr, idx, nbatch, double, REAL, 1, 4, { > >> for (R_xlen_t i = 0; i < nbatch; i++) > >> Rprintf("idx: %lld, i: %lld, ptr:%f\n", idx, i, ptr[i]); > > > > You need to index "ptr" by "idx + i", not by "i". Have a look at how > > the macros...

I believe the performance of isUnsorted() in sort.c could be improved by calling REAL() once (outside of the for loop), rather than calling it twice inside the loop. As an aside, it is implemented in the faster way in doSort() (sort.c line 401). The example below shows the performance improvement for a vectors of double of moving REAL() outside the for loop. # example as implemented in