accessing boundaries of array without duplicating lots of code - arrays
When I try to compile my code using -fcheck=all I get a runtime error since it seems I step out of bounds of my array dimension size. It comes from the part of my code shown below. I think it is because my loops over i,j only run from -ny to ny, -nx to nx but I try to use points at i+1,j+1,i-1,j-1 which takes me out of bounds in my arrays. When the loop over j starts at -ny, it needs j-1, so it immediately takes me out of bounds since I'm trying to access -ny-1. Similarly when j=ny, i=-nx,nx.
My question is, how can I fix this problem efficiently using minimal code?
I need the array grad(1,i,j) correctly defined on the boundary, and it needs to be defined exactly as on the right hand side of the equality below, I just don't know an efficient way of doing this. I can explicitly define grad(1,nx,j), grad(1,-nx,j), etc, separately and only loop over i=-nx+1,nx-1,j=-ny+1,ny-1 but this causes lots of duplicated code and I have many of these arrays so I don't think this is the logical/efficient approach. If I do this, I just end up with hundreds of lines of duplicated code that makes it very hard to debug. Thanks.
integer :: i,j
integer, parameter :: nx = 50, ny = 50
complex, dimension (3,-nx:nx,-ny:ny) :: grad,psi
real, parameter :: h = 0.1
do j = -ny,ny
do i = -nx,nx
psi(1,i,j) = sin(i*h)+sin(j*h)
psi(2,i,j) = sin(i*h)+sin(j*h)
psi(3,i,j) = sin(i*h)+sin(j*h)
end do
end do
do j = -ny,ny
do i = -nx,nx
grad(1,i,j) = (psi(1,i+1,j)+psi(1,i-1,j)+psi(1,i,j+1)+psi(1,i,j-1)-4*psi(1,i,j))/h**2 &
- (psi(2,i+1,j)-psi(2,i,j))*psi(1,i,j)/h &
- (psi(3,i,j+1)-psi(3,i,j))*psi(1,i,j)/h &
- psi(2,i,j)*(psi(1,i+1,j)-psi(1,i,j))/h &
- psi(3,i,j)*(psi(1,i,j+1)-psi(1,i,j))/h
end do
end do
If I was to do this directly for grad(1,nx,j), grad(1,-nx,j), it would be given by
do j = -ny+1,ny-1
grad(1,nx,j) = (psi(1,nx,j)+psi(1,nx-2,j)+psi(1,nx,j+1)+psi(1,nx,j-1)-2*psi(1,nx-1,j)-2*psi(1,nx,j))/h**2 &
- (psi(2,nx,j)-psi(2,nx-1,j))*psi(1,nx,j)/h &
- (psi(3,nx,j+1)-psi(3,nx,j))*psi(1,nx,j)/h &
- psi(2,nx,j)*(psi(1,nx,j)-psi(1,nx-1,j))/h &
- psi(3,nx,j)*(psi(1,nx,j+1)-psi(1,nx,j))/h
grad(1,-nx,j) = (psi(1,-nx+2,j)+psi(1,-nx,j)+psi(1,-nx,j+1)+psi(1,-nx,j-1)-2*psi(1,-nx+1,j)-2*psi(1,-nx,j))/h**2 &
- (psi(2,-nx+1,j)-psi(2,-nx,j))*psi(1,-nx,j)/h &
- (psi(3,-nx,j+1)-psi(3,-nx,j))*psi(1,-nx,j)/h &
- psi(2,-nx,j)*(psi(1,-nx+1,j)-psi(1,-nx,j))/h &
- psi(3,-nx,j)*(psi(1,-nx,j+1)-psi(1,-nx,j))/h
end do
One possible way for you could be using an additional index variable for the boundaries, modified from the original index to avoid getting out-of-bounds. I mean something like this:
do j = -ny,ny
jj = max(min(j, ny-1), -ny+1)
do i = -nx,nx
ii = max(min(i, nx-1), -nx+1)
grad(1,i,j) = (psi(1,ii+1,j)+psi(1,ii-1,j)+psi(1,i,jj+1)+psi(1,i,jj-1)-4*psi(1,i,j))/h**2 &
- (psi(2,ii+1,j)-psi(2,ii,j))*psi(1,i,j)/h &
- (psi(3,i,jj+1)-psi(3,i,jj))*psi(1,i,j)/h &
- psi(2,i,j)*(psi(1,ii+1,j)-psi(1,ii,j))/h &
- psi(3,i,j)*(psi(1,i,jj+1)-psi(1,i,jj))/h
end do
end do
It's hard for me to write a proper code because it seems you trimmed part of the original expression in the code you presented in the question, but I hope you understand the idea and apply it correctly for your logic.
Opinions:
Even though this is what you are asking for (as far as I understand), I would not recommend doing this before profiling and checking if assigning the boundary conditions manually after a whole array operation wouldn't be more efficient, instead. Maybe those extra calculations on the indices on each iteration could impact on performance (arguably less than if conditionals or function calls). Using "ghost cells", as suggested by #evets, could be even more performant. You should profile and compare.
I'd recommend you declaring your arrays as dimension(-nx:nx,-ny:ny,3) instead. Fortran stores arrays in column-major order and, as you are accessing values on the neighborhood of the "x" and "y", they would be non-contiguous memory locations for a fixed "other" dimension is the leftest, and that could mean less cache-hits.
In somewhat pseudo-code, you can do
do j = -ny, ny
if (j == -ny) then
p1jm1 = XXXXX ! Some boundary condition
else
p1jm1 = psi(1,i,j-1)
end if
if (j == ny) then
p1jp1 = YYYYY ! Some other boundary condition
else
p1jp1 = psi(1,i,j+1)
end if
do i = -nx, ny
grad(1,i,j) = ... term involving p1jm1 ... term involving p1jp1 ...
...
end do
end do
The j-loop isn't bad in that you are adding 2*2*ny conditionals. The inner i-loop is adding 2*2*nx conditionals for each j iteration (or 2*2*ny * 2*2*nx conditional). Note, you need a temporary for each psi with the triplet indices are unique, ie., psi(1,i,j+1), psi(1,i,j-1), and psi(3,i,j+1).
Related
Julia For-loops used for accessing 1D Arrays
I am trying to run a 2 for loops to access 2 elements within an array, (e.g.) x = 100 for i in eachindex(x-1) for j in 2:x doSomething = Array[i] + Array[j] end end And often (not always) I get this error or similar: LoadError: BoundsError: attempt to access 36-element Array{Any,1} at index [64] I understand there are proper ways to run these loops to avoid bounds errors, hence my use of eachindex(x-1) == 1:x, how would I do this for 2:x? I am relatively new to Julia, if this is not the reason for the bounds error, what could it be? - Thanks EDIT: shortened version of what I am trying to run (Also yes, vector-arrays) all_people = Vector{type_person}() # 1D Vector of type person size = length(all_people) ... fill vector array to create an initial population of people ... # Now add to the array using existing parent objects for i in 1:size-1 for j in 2:size if all_people[i].age >= all_people[j].age # oldest parent object forms child variable child = type_person(all_people[i]) else child = type_person(all_people[j]) end push!(all_people, child) # add to the group of people end end
I made few guesses but perhaps this is the code you want: struct Person parent::Union{Nothing,Person} age::Int end Person(parent::Person) = Person(parent,0) N = 100 population = Person.(nothing, rand(20:50,N)) for i in 1:(N-1) for j in (i+1):N parent = population[population[i].age >= population[j].age ? i : j] push!(population, Person(parent)) end end Notes: For this types of code also have a look at the Parameters.jl package - it is very convenient for agent constructors Notice how the constructor has been vectorized Types in Julia are named starting with capital letters (and hence Person) I assume that for children you wanted to try each pair of parents hence this is how to construct the loop. You do not need to evaluate the same pair of parents as (i,j) and then later as (j,i). eachindex should be used on Arrays - does not make sense on scalars
Do loop index changing on its own
I have a couple hundred line program (including functions) in essentially free-form Fortran. At one point, I have a pair of nested do loops that call functions and store results in matrices. However, I don't believe any of that is the problem (although I could be wrong). Immediately after the first do loop starts, I define an array using a column of another array. Immediately after that, the index is always set to 3. I haven't been able to find any useful information in the usual places. I've included a fragment of the code below. do i = 1,n print *, 'i:',i ! Gives i = 1 applyto = eig_vec(:,i) print *, i ! Gives i = 3 state1 = create_state(ground,applyto,state,bin_state,num_s,ns) first = destroy_state(ground,state1,state,bin_state,num_s,ns) state1 = destroy_state(ground,applyto,state,bin_state,num_s,ns) second = create_state(ground,state1,state,bin_state,num_s, 1 ns) do j = 1,n bra = eig_vec(:,j) a_matrix(j,i) = sum(bra*first + bra*second) matrix(j,i) = sum(bra*first - bra*second end do end do Is this a bug? Am I missing something obvious? I am compiling the code with a high level of optimization, if that could potentially be a source of problems. I'm relatively new to Fortran, so debugging flags or commands (for gdb - I believe that's all I have available) would be welcome.
MATLAB: vectorize filling of 3D-array
I would like to safe a certain amount of grayscale-images (->2D-arrays) as layers in a 3D-array. Because it should be very fast for a realtime-application I would like to vectorize the following code, where m is the number of shifts: for i=1:m array(:,:,i)=imabsdiff(circshift(img1,[0 i-1]), img2); end nispio showed me a very advanced version, which you can see here: I = speye(size(img1,2)); E = -1*I; ii = toeplitz(1:m,[1,size(img1,2):-1:2]); D = vertcat(repmat(I,1,m),E(:,ii)); data_c = shape(abs([double(img1),double(img2)]*D),size(data_r,1),size(data_r,2),m); At the moment the results of both operations are not the same, maybe it shifts the image into the wrong direction. My knowledge is very limited, so I dont understand the code completely.
You could do this: M = 16; N = 20; img1 = randi(255,M,N); % Create a random M x N image ii = toeplitz(1:N,circshift(fliplr(1:N)',1)); % Create an indexing variable % Create layers that are shifted copies of the image array = reshape(img1(:,ii),M,N,N); As long as your image dimensions don't change, you only ever need to create the ii variable once. After that, you can call the last line each time your image changes. I don't know for sure that this will give you a speed advantage over a for loop, but it is vectorized like you requested. :) UPDATE In light of the new information shared about the problem, this solution should give you an order of magnitudes increase in speed: clear all; % Set image sizes M = 360; N = 500; % Number of column shifts to test ncols = 200; % Create comparison matrix (see NOTE) I = speye(N); E = -1*I; ii = toeplitz([1:N],[1,N:-1:(N-ncols+2)]); D = vertcat(repmat(I,1,ncols),E(:,ii)); % Generate some test images img1 = randi(255,M,N); img2 = randi(255,M,N); % Compare images (vectorized) data_c = reshape(abs([img2,img1]*D),M,N,ncols); % Compare images (for loop) array = zeros(M,N,ncols); % <-- Pre-allocate this array! for i=1:ncols array(:,:,i)=imabsdiff(circshift(img1,[0 i-1]),img2); end This uses matrix multiplication to do the comparisons instead of generating a whole bunch of shifted copies of the image. NOTE: The matrix D should only be generated one time if your image size is not changing. Notice that the D matrix is completely independent of the images, so it would be wasteful to regenerate it every time. However, if the image size does change, you will need to update D. Edit: I have updated the code to more closely match what you seem to be looking for. Then I throw the "original" for-loop implementation in to show that they give the same result. One thing worth noting about the vectorized version is that it has the potential to be very memory instensive. If ncols = N then the D matrix has N^3 elements. Even though D is sparse, things fall apart fast when you multiply D by the non-sparse images. Also, notice that I pre-allocate array before the for loop. This is always good practice in Matlab, where practical, and it will almost invariably give you a large performance boost over the dynamic sizing.
If question is understood correctly, I think you need for loop for v=1:1:20 array(:,:,v)=circshift(image,[0 v]); end
Dynamically creating and naming an array
Consider the following code snippet for i = 1:100 Yi= x(i:i + 3); % i in Yi is not an index but subscript, % x is some array having sufficient values i = i + 3 end Basically I want that each time the for loop runs the subscript changes from 1 to 2, 3, ..., 100. SO in effect after 100 iterations I will be having 100 arrays, starting with Y1 to Y100. What could be the simplest way to implement this in MATLAB? UPDATE This is to be run 15 times Y1 = 64; fft_x = 2 * abs(Y1(5)); For simplicity I have taken constant inputs. Now I am trying to use cell based on Marc's answer: Y1 = cell(15,1); fft_x = cell(15,1); for i = 1:15 Y1{i,1} = 64; fft_x{i,1} = 2 * abs(Y1(5)); end I think I need to do some changes in abs(). Please suggest.
It is impossible to make variably-named variables in matlab. The common solution is to use a cell array for Y: Y=cell(100,1); for i =1:100 Y{i,1}= x(i:i+3); i=i+3; end Note that the line i=i+3 inside the for-loop has no effect. You can just remove it. Y=cell(100,1); for i =1:100 Y{i,1}= x(i:i+3); end
It is possible to make variably-named variables in matlab. If you really want this do something like this: for i = 1:4:100 eval(['Y', num2str((i+3)/4), '=x(i:i+3);']); end How you organize your indexing depends on what you plan to do with x of course...
Yes, you can dynamically name variables. However, it's almost never a good idea and there are much better/safer/faster alternatives, e.g. cell arrays as demonstrated by #Marc Claesen. Look at the assignin function (and the related eval). You could do what asked for with: for i = 1:100 assignin('caller',['Y' int2str(i)],rand(1,i)) end Another related function is genvarname. Don't use these unless you really need them.
Are there any languages that have a do-until loop?
Is there any programming language that has a do-until loop? Example: do { <statements> } until (<condition>); which is basically equivalent to: do { <statements> } while (<negated condition>); NOTE: I'm looking for post-test loops.
Ruby has until. i=0 begin puts i i += 1 end until i==5
VBA! Do-Until-Loop Do-Loop-Until Although I think quite a number of people here would doubt if it is a real language at all, but well, BASIC is how Microsoft started (quite weak argument for many, I know)...
It is possible in VB.Net bExitFromLoop = False Do 'Executes the following Statement Loop Until bExitFromLoop It is also possible in SDF-P on BS2000 (Fujitsu/Siemens Operating System) / DECLARE-VARIABLE A / DECLARE-VARIABLE SWITCH-1(TYPE=*BOOLEAN) / SET-VARIABLE A = 5 / SET-VARIABLE SWITCH-1 = ON / REPEAT / A = A + 10 / IF (A > 50) / SET-VARIABLE SWITCH-1 = OFF / END-IF / UNTIL (SWITCH-1 = OFF) / SHOW-VARIABLE A A = 55 Is is also possible is C or C++ using a macro that define until Example (definition): #define until(cond) while(!(##cond)) Example (utilisation): int i = 0; do { cout << i << "\n"; i++; } until(i == 5);
In VB we can find something like: Reponse = InputBox("Please Enter Pwd") Do Until Reponse = "Bob-pwr148" ...
Eiffel offers you an until loop. from x := 1 until x > 100 loop ... end There is also an "across" loop as well. Both are very powerful and expressive. The design of this loop has more to offer. There are two more parts to its grammar that will help us resolve two important "correctness" problems. Endless loop protection. Iteration failure detection. Endless Loop Protection Let's modify our loop code a little by adding a loop variant. from x := 1 v := 1_000 until x > 100 variant v loop ... v := v - 1 end The loop variant is (essentially) a count-down variable, but not just any old variable. By using the variant keyword, we are telling the compiler to pay attention to v. Specifically, the compiler is going to generate code that watchdogs the v variable for two conditions: Does v decrease with each iteration of the loop (are we counting down). It does no good to try and use a count-down variable if it is (in fact) not counting down, right? If the loop variant is not counting down (decreasing by any amount), then we throw an exception. Does v ever reach a condition of less than zero? If so, then we throw an exception. Both of these work together through the compiler and variant variable to detect when and if our iterating loop fails to iterate or iterates too many times. In the example above, our code is communicating to us a story that it expects to iterate zero to 1_000 times, but not more. If it is more, then we stop the loop, which leaves us to wonder: Do we really have cases were we iterate more than 1_000 times, or is there something wrong that our condition is failing to become True? Loop Invariant Now that we know what a loop variant is, we need to understand what a loop invariant is. The invariant is a set of one or more Boolean conditions that must hold True after each iteration through the loop. Why do we want these? Imagine you have 1_000_000 iterations and one of them fails. You don't have time to walk through each iteration, examining it to see it is okay or not. So, you create a set of one or more conditions that are tested upon completion of each iteration. If the one or all of the conditions fail, then you know precisely which iteration (and its deterministic state) is causing the problem! The loop invariant might look something like: from x := 1 y := 0 v := 1_000 invariant y = x - 1 until x > 100 variant v loop ... x := x + 1 y := y + 1 v := v - 1 end In the example above, y is trailing x by 1. We expect that after each iteration, y will always be x - 1. So, we create a loop invariant using the invariant keyword that states our Boolean assertion. If y fails to be x - 1, the loop will immediately throw an exception and let us know precisely which iteration has failed to keep the assertion True. CONCLUSION Our loop is now quite tight and secure—well guarded against failure (bugs, errors).