In this algebra, it’s possible to compute on a mesh of arbitrary 5 dimensional conformal geometric algebra simplices, which can be represented by a bundle of nested dyadic tensors. julia> using Grassmann, StaticArrays; basis"+-+++" (⟨+-+++⟩, v, v₁, v₂, v₃, v₄, v₅, v₁₂, v₁₃, v₁₄, v₁₅, v₂₃, v₂₄, v₂₅…

willing to consider changing its application in any use of Base.@pure if it’s a mistake You’re clearly not actually willing to, since it’s been pointed out before that the bug report mentioned above ( Mysterious internal error when using Grassmann.jl · Issue #31185 · JuliaLang/julia · GitHub ) de…

That bug was fixed already, and the fix didn’t involve changing anything with @pure as it was a bug with the type system in a conversion method.

[image] chakravala: Can you elaborate what the potential issues are? I’m only guessing, but I think that the reason why “return value allocation is definitely not pure” is that it depends on where heap memory is available, and this is is a global state. Example: f() = [] f() === f() # retur…

This doesn’t actually matter for my use case though. I don’t need the output to be ===. It only generates some symbols which get pasted into a function.

The @pure annotation tells the compiler that you guarantee the output to be ===. If you don’t have or need that guarantee, then you should let compiler know by removing the annotation.

Julia has gotten significantly better at constant propagation since you first wrote this, so I would be surprised if many of them actually give you a performance benefit anymore in any case.

[image] chakravala: Alright then, I will remove that annotation in this particular case, but there many valid use cases of it in other places of my package. At the risk of sounding like a breaking record, this is probably not true, mostly just because there isn’t really a way to use @pure cor…

[image] Keno: The point people are trying to make here is that it’s best to avoid @pure because the compiler makes zero guarantees about what it means, so if you don’t 100% need it, you’re better off without it. Even if nothing breaks right now, future versions of Julia can and will break and cr…

[image] Per: I’m only guessing, but I think that the reason why "return value allocation is definitely not pure " is that it depends on where heap memory is available, and this is is a global state. Example: f() = [] f() === f() # returns false The function f is not pure, since calling it wit…

Grassmann.jl A\b 3x faster than Julia's StaticArrays.jl

General Usage Performance

chakravala June 17, 2020, 3:12pm 18

Alright then, I will remove that annotation in this particular case, but there many valid use cases of it in other places of my package.

Topic		Replies	Views
[ANN] Grassmann.jl : Differential geometric algebra Package Announcements package , announcement , differentiation , array , linearalgebra	23	10134	December 22, 2019
Computing Inverse of a stack of matrices General Usage performance , linearalgebra	19	3930	August 29, 2020
[ANN] CliffordAlgebras.jl Package Announcements math , algebra , geometry , geometric-algebra	19	2655	November 30, 2021
Paper for discussion: The Linear Algebra Mapping Problem Internals & Design	13	1676	November 25, 2019
Static array multiplied by its adjoint seems to allocate Performance linearalgebra , memory-allocation , staticarrays , allocations	12	430	December 2, 2024

Grassmann.jl A\b 3x faster than Julia's StaticArrays.jl

Related topics