Dear George,
thanks for the message. The issue needs to be discussed carefully.
1) We are trying to get rid of most global variables and to pass oo_, options_ and M_ as arguments. There is no good reason, why this has not been done yet in DsgeLikelihood.m 2) Besides a cleaner more robust code, we learned that accessing global variables in Matlab is expensive, and, most likely it is also true for Mex library 3) DsgeLikelihood++ is not primarily meant for calling from Matlab, but from a C++ version of dynare_estimation_1.m 4) There are only two of these variables that are changed in DsgeLikelihood: - M_.params, but a local version of modified params vector should probably be an argument to dynare_resolve - options_.kalman_algo that passes back the choice of Kalman algorithm. We can probably find another mechanism to pass back this information to Matlab. 5) My preference would be to have one C++ class that contains all the parameters from M_, options_ and bayestopt_ (the latter needs to be rethought), needed by the C++ estimation functions. This class should be initialized at the instanciation of the top class (here dynare_estimation++) from M_ and options_ pointers passed as arguments 6) One needs to think about a similar mechanism for output variables. 7) I have three problems with the current structures that we use *M_ contains parameters describing the model (OK) *oo_ contains output. We may want to distinguish output that is only made available to the user and intermediary output that is meant to be used by other routines such as structure dr. It could make accessing these intermediary results faster * options_ contains both real options_ and information on the current state of Dynare computations (such as kalman_algo here), These should probably be separated * bayestopt_ (and estim_params) is currently a mess and should be reconsidered. It is mainly meant to contained parameters describing the priors that are deduced from user input passed by the preprocessor in estim_params 8) In summary, for now, in DsgeLikelihood++, you should simply refer to a C++ version of these objects that we will build later.
Best
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Dear Michel
Regarding design of the interface with Matlab (and Octave?), there are many variables from global structures that need to be referred to from various parts of estimation (and some updated too).
Is it ok if I make DsgeLikelihood++ system refer to options_, oo_ and other large structures (and some other variable) using mex functions mexGetVariable (and, if needed, mexPutVariable for updates) rather than trying to pass whole structures at the call time and creating C++ instances of all or (large) subsets of their data.
e.g. const mxArray *mexExt = mexGetVariable("base", "mexext"); or const mxArray *M_ = mexGetVariable("caller", "M_");
That will reduce number of variables that need to be passed on call and writing code on their breaking down and passing around from mexFunction to the other modules.
I can optimise access to read-once only to reduce DLL-Matlab traffic too using a permanent class on the lines of:
class MexStruct { mxArray* mexStruct; const char *base; // one of: base, caller, global const char *structName; MexStruct( char *sBase, char * mexStructName) : base(sBase), structName(mexStructName) { mexStruct=mexGetVariable(base, structName); } mxArray * getMexStructField(char * field) { return mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); } void putMexStruct(){mexPutVariable(base, structName, mexStruct);} void setMexStructField(char * field, mxArray *newVal) { mxArray *fp = mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); mxDestroy(fp) mxSetField(mexStruct,0,field, newVal); } }
Some global variables in those structures also need to be set so the above class' methods can pass back updated global variables too at the end of the DsgaLikelihood. Also, as another advantage of this model, they can be passed back even in real time when if that may be needed for parallelisation.
Best regards
George Mob. +44(0)7951415480 artilogica@btconnect.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Hi George,
Dear Michel
- Re email below, due to problem of code for calling
<model>dynamic.dll,
needed by estimation but being in the same file with mexFunction in k_order_perturbation.cpp
Alternatives: a) I can use (a different) literal, e.g. KORDERPERT_MEX_FILE and compile k_order_perturbation.cpp for k_order_perturbation.dll using -DKORDERPERT_MEX_FILE and for DsgeLIkelihood/estimation without, - probably the easiest
solution
to implement and maintain until situation may change, - or,
b) I can split k_order_perturbation.cpp in two -
k_order_perturbation.cpp
with mexFunction and another file for calling <model>dynamic.dll which
will
be placed into korderpertlib.a and linked to DsgeLikelihood/estimation
too -
probably the optimal solution. or,
c) copy k_order_perturbation.cpp code for calling
<model>dynamic.dll.into
another file and keep it under DsgeLikelihood/estimation and have DsgeLikelihood refer to k-orderpertlib for the rest - this may duplicate effort on maintaining the dynamic.dll call management code but it is a
clear
cut.
I prefer 1.b) too
- Shall I treat C++ DsgeLIkelihood
a) as an extension of KF or KORDERPERT and put its code in one of those
2
mex/source directories, or
b) create a new one, e.g. estimation, with its makefiile referring to
the
code and objects in the other two?
I suggest 1.b and to treat DsgeLIkelihood as a subdirectory of kalman directory which will refer to korderpertlib and kalman src.
I prefer 2.b, because DsgeLikelihood calls Kalman code and it is weird to have it in a subdirectory of kalman
All the best,
Michel
Please let me know if that is OK with you.
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk To: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:50 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Dear Michel
In k-order-perturbation makefile someone(you?) defined literal -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE for several cpp files, some of which do not contain mexFunction, e.g.
k_order_test_main.o: k_order_test_main.cpp gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ...
k_ord_dynare.o: k_ord_dynare.cpp k_ord_dynare.h gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ....
k_order_perturbation.o: k_order_perturbation.cpp k_order_perturbation.h gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ....
nlsolve.o: $(DYNAREPPDIR)/src/nlsolve.cpp gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ....
whereas only k_order_perturbation.cpp contains mexFunction().
What is that switch/literal used for?
I wandered if it is OK to use that literal and set a switch in k_order_perturbation.cpp to exclude mexFunction from compilation when
not
defined so that the file can be used with other mexFunctions such as
the
one
for DsgeLikelihood., e.g.
#ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE // exclude mexFunction for other applications extern "C" { void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[], int nrhs, const
mxArray
*prhs[]) { ... here goes mexFunction .: } }; // end of extern C #endif // ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE
Oterwise I can set another literal.
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:36 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Hi George,
currently there are 3 different cases:
- the steady state is not affected by estimation. This is the case
that
we are implementing now 2) A Matlab function is provided by the user to compute the steady
state
as a function of model's parameters. The implementation is cumbersome for the user and should become a feature of the preprocessor. As long as the definitive version is not done, there is no point in losing time writing a C interface for that 3) The steady state must be solved for by calling a nonlinear equation solver. We will need to implement this as well, but it is a lower priority. I would like to have the entire estimation chain in C++ working first with just a constant steady state.
All the best,
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Dear Michel
Regarding steady state, can you remind me why we can not use ss
calculation
inside the k-order-perturb ? Can we than instead call Dynare Matlab steady state calculation,
currently
called from resol.m, from estimate_1.m just before calling the new
C++
DsgeLikelihood (or from a new Matlab shell DsgeLikelihood_m.m that is
then
calling C++ DsgeLikelihood) where new C++ resol will not call ss calculation as the Matlab one does?
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 8:37 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
> Hi George, > > > >> Should I suppose that the C++ DsgeLikelihood would also include >>
C++
>> versions of: >> resol.m >> >> >> >> > yes, this mainly calls first order solution in dr1.m > > > > >> kalman_transition_matrix.m >> >> >> >> > yes > > > >> and >> the 1st order part of the k-ord_pert version of dr1.m that will be >> >> >> calling
>> k-order_perturbation for 1st order only, either as a DLL (as it >> >>
does
now)
>> or incorporating it statically? >> >> >> >> >> > first order solution should be linked statically > > > > >> May I then also assume that >> >> a) set_state_space.m and the kstate preamble will in future be >> >>
performed
>> before calling DsgeLikelihood, and not repeatedly within dr1 and >>
its
>> future
>> C++ version - as I remember has already been planned? >> >> >> >> > yes, we will have to implement such a mechanism > > > >> b) Ramsey will not be part of it for now >> >> >> >> >> > correct > > > >> c) I need to check but I think I may not need to code >> >> >> transition_matrix.m
>> and use the info 3/4 test currently in dr1: >> if nba > nyf info(1) = 3; >> elseif nba < nyf info(1) = 4; >> as a similar test already exist in k-ord-pert. >> >> >> >> >> > probably correct > > > >> d) Also, we seem to need a new algorithm to handle exogenous >> >> >> deterministic
>> variables i.e. when M_.exo_det_nbr > 0 ? They are not currently >> >>
handled
for
>> k-order perturbation. >> >> >> >> >> > no, there is no estimation with exogenous deterministic variables > > > Best > > Michel > > > >> Best regards >> >> George >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr >> To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk; "Joe >>
Pearlman"
>> j.pearlman@londonmet.ac.uk >> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:46 AM >> Subject: Re: lyapunov kalman filter options >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Thanks George, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> .... >> >> >> >> >>> For the next steps, I think that you have now all elements to code >>> >>>
a
C++
>>> version of DsgeLikelihood.m Of course you should restrict it to >>>
the
>>> case
>>> of stationary models. >>> >>> As we haven't solved yet the issue around computing the steady >>> >>>
state,
>>> for the time being, limit yourself to the case where the steady >>> >>>
state
>>> doesn't change throughout estimation. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>
Hi all
I have been working on a fundamental approach to the further below outlined (see enclosed email below) issue of dynare structures, either global or local, being available inside C++ modules and have developed prototypes of two classes that provide for integration of the parameters inside one class and for their access and modification. (The location ands scope of the original Dynare param structure need not be global but can be also local to the calling Dynare matlab modules.)
They provide for: - a generic abstract class GeneralParams as interface to parameters repository from C++ :
class GeneralParams { map <string, int> params; const char *structName; public: GeneralParams(); GeneralParams( char *sBase, char * parStructName); virtual ~GeneralParams(); virtual void * getField(char * field)=0; virtual char * getCharField(char * field)=0; //returns General Matrix from sylv library virtual GeneralMatrix * getMatrixField(char * field)=0; // overloaded pramater update "set" methods: virtual void setField(char * field, char *newVal)=0; virtual void setField(char * field, double val)=0; virtual void setField(char * field, GeneralMatrix& val)=0; };
- another dealing with the specifics of Matlab and Dynare:
- use mexGetVariablePtr() to locate pointer to the structure rather than copy whole structure locally into C++ memory space and makes them available read only-
- concatenates Dynare structure individual elements' names into a single map mapping their names to the original structure pointers so that they can be located and retrieved individually directly form the Matlab memory space when if needed.
- Allows for structures' elements to be updated and propagated back inside Matlab (locally or globally). This approach then uses mexGetVariable() to copy structures into C++ pace only when one of the structure values needs to be updated, and pus it back.
The generic interface abstract class leaves thus to the Dynare Matlab specific implementation to deal with any changes in Dynare structures and their locations that may occur in meantime.
The system still requires testing and it is in a rough prototype stage, and it is also, of course, open to further suggestions and modifications and I would like your suggestions before committing its design to the WikiPage and its code to thorough testing.
Best regards
George artilogica@btconnect.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk; "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:39 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Dear George,
thanks for the message. The issue needs to be discussed carefully.
- We are trying to get rid of most global variables and to pass oo_,
options_ and M_ as arguments. There is no good reason, why this has not been done yet in DsgeLikelihood.m 2) Besides a cleaner more robust code, we learned that accessing global variables in Matlab is expensive, and, most likely it is also true for Mex library 3) DsgeLikelihood++ is not primarily meant for calling from Matlab, but from a C++ version of dynare_estimation_1.m 4) There are only two of these variables that are changed in
DsgeLikelihood:
- M_.params, but a local version of modified params vector should
probably be an argument to dynare_resolve
- options_.kalman_algo that passes back the choice of Kalman algorithm.
We can probably find another mechanism to pass back this information to Matlab. 5) My preference would be to have one C++ class that contains all the parameters from M_, options_ and bayestopt_ (the latter needs to be rethought), needed by the C++ estimation functions. This class should be initialized at the instanciation of the top class (here dynare_estimation++) from M_ and options_ pointers passed as arguments 6) One needs to think about a similar mechanism for output variables. 7) I have three problems with the current structures that we use *M_ contains parameters describing the model (OK) *oo_ contains output. We may want to distinguish output that is only made available to the user and intermediary output that is meant to be used by other routines such as structure dr. It could make accessing these intermediary results faster
- options_ contains both real options_ and information on the current
state of Dynare computations (such as kalman_algo here), These should probably be separated
- bayestopt_ (and estim_params) is currently a mess and should be
reconsidered. It is mainly meant to contained parameters describing the priors that are deduced from user input passed by the preprocessor in estim_params 8) In summary, for now, in DsgeLikelihood++, you should simply refer to a C++ version of these objects that we will build later.
Best
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Dear Michel
Regarding design of the interface with Matlab (and Octave?), there are
many
variables from global structures that need to be referred to from
various
parts of estimation (and some updated too).
Is it ok if I make DsgeLikelihood++ system refer to options_, oo_ and
other
large structures (and some other variable) using mex functions mexGetVariable (and, if needed, mexPutVariable for updates) rather than trying to pass whole structures at the call time and creating C++
instances
of all or (large) subsets of their data.
e.g. const mxArray *mexExt = mexGetVariable("base", "mexext"); or const mxArray *M_ = mexGetVariable("caller", "M_");
That will reduce number of variables that need to be passed on call and writing code on their breaking down and passing around from mexFunction
to
the other modules.
I can optimise access to read-once only to reduce DLL-Matlab traffic too using a permanent class on the lines of:
class MexStruct { mxArray* mexStruct; const char *base; // one of: base, caller, global const char *structName; MexStruct( char *sBase, char * mexStructName) : base(sBase), structName(mexStructName) { mexStruct=mexGetVariable(base, structName); } mxArray * getMexStructField(char * field) { return mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); } void putMexStruct(){mexPutVariable(base, structName, mexStruct);} void setMexStructField(char * field, mxArray *newVal) { mxArray *fp = mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); mxDestroy(fp) mxSetField(mexStruct,0,field, newVal); } }
Some global variables in those structures also need to be set so the
above
class' methods can pass back updated global variables too at the end of
the
DsgaLikelihood. Also, as another advantage of this model, they can be
passed
back even in real time when if that may be needed for parallelisation.
Best regards
George Mob. +44(0)7951415480 artilogica@btconnect.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Hi George,
Dear Michel
- Re email below, due to problem of code for calling
<model>dynamic.dll,
needed by estimation but being in the same file with mexFunction in k_order_perturbation.cpp
Alternatives: a) I can use (a different) literal, e.g. KORDERPERT_MEX_FILE and compile k_order_perturbation.cpp for k_order_perturbation.dll
using
-DKORDERPERT_MEX_FILE and for DsgeLIkelihood/estimation without, - probably the easiest
solution
to implement and maintain until situation may change, - or,
b) I can split k_order_perturbation.cpp in two -
k_order_perturbation.cpp
with mexFunction and another file for calling <model>dynamic.dll which
will
be placed into korderpertlib.a and linked to DsgeLikelihood/estimation
too -
probably the optimal solution. or,
c) copy k_order_perturbation.cpp code for calling
<model>dynamic.dll.into
another file and keep it under DsgeLikelihood/estimation and have DsgeLikelihood refer to k-orderpertlib for the rest - this may
duplicate
effort on maintaining the dynamic.dll call management code but it is a
clear
cut.
I prefer 1.b) too
- Shall I treat C++ DsgeLIkelihood
a) as an extension of KF or KORDERPERT and put its code in one of
those
2
mex/source directories, or
b) create a new one, e.g. estimation, with its makefiile referring to
the
code and objects in the other two?
I suggest 1.b and to treat DsgeLIkelihood as a subdirectory of kalman directory which will refer to korderpertlib and kalman src.
I prefer 2.b, because DsgeLikelihood calls Kalman code and it is weird to have it in a subdirectory of kalman
All the best,
Michel
Please let me know if that is OK with you.
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk To: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:50 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Dear Michel
In k-order-perturbation makefile someone(you?) defined literal -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE for several cpp files, some of which do not contain mexFunction, e.g.
k_order_test_main.o: k_order_test_main.cpp gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ...
k_ord_dynare.o: k_ord_dynare.cpp k_ord_dynare.h gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ....
k_order_perturbation.o: k_order_perturbation.cpp
k_order_perturbation.h
gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ....
nlsolve.o: $(DYNAREPPDIR)/src/nlsolve.cpp gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ....
whereas only k_order_perturbation.cpp contains mexFunction().
What is that switch/literal used for?
I wandered if it is OK to use that literal and set a switch in k_order_perturbation.cpp to exclude mexFunction from compilation when
not
defined so that the file can be used with other mexFunctions such as
the
one
for DsgeLikelihood., e.g.
#ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE // exclude mexFunction for other applications extern "C" { void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[], int nrhs, const
mxArray
*prhs[]) { ... here goes mexFunction .: } }; // end of extern C #endif // ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE
Oterwise I can set another literal.
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:36 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Hi George,
currently there are 3 different cases:
- the steady state is not affected by estimation. This is the case
that
we are implementing now 2) A Matlab function is provided by the user to compute the steady
state
as a function of model's parameters. The implementation is cumbersome for the user and should become a feature of the preprocessor. As long as the definitive version is
not
done, there is no point in losing time writing a C interface for
that
- The steady state must be solved for by calling a nonlinear
equation
solver. We will need to implement this as well, but it is a lower priority. I would like to have the entire estimation chain in C++ working first with just a constant steady state.
All the best,
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
> Dear Michel > > Regarding steady state, can you remind me why we can not use ss > >
calculation
> inside the k-order-perturb ? > Can we than instead call Dynare Matlab steady state calculation, > >
currently
> called from resol.m, from estimate_1.m just before calling the
new
> >
C++
> DsgeLikelihood (or from a new Matlab shell DsgeLikelihood_m.m that
is
> >
then
> calling C++ DsgeLikelihood) where new C++ resol will not call ss > calculation as the Matlab one does? > > Best regards > > George > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr > To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 8:37 PM > Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood > > > > > >> Hi George, >> >> >> >>> Should I suppose that the C++ DsgeLikelihood would also include >>>
C++
>>> versions of: >>> resol.m >>> >>> >>> >>> >> yes, this mainly calls first order solution in dr1.m >> >> >> >> >>> kalman_transition_matrix.m >>> >>> >>> >>> >> yes >> >> >> >>> and >>> the 1st order part of the k-ord_pert version of dr1.m that will
be
>>> >>> >>> > calling > > > >>> k-order_perturbation for 1st order only, either as a DLL (as it >>> >>>
does
> now) > > > >>> or incorporating it statically? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> first order solution should be linked statically >> >> >> >> >>> May I then also assume that >>> >>> a) set_state_space.m and the kstate preamble will in future be >>> >>>
performed
>>> before calling DsgeLikelihood, and not repeatedly within dr1 and >>>
its
>>> > future > > > >>> C++ version - as I remember has already been planned? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> yes, we will have to implement such a mechanism >> >> >> >>> b) Ramsey will not be part of it for now >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> correct >> >> >> >>> c) I need to check but I think I may not need to code >>> >>> >>> > transition_matrix.m > > > >>> and use the info 3/4 test currently in dr1: >>> if nba > nyf info(1) = 3; >>> elseif nba < nyf info(1) = 4; >>> as a similar test already exist in k-ord-pert. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> probably correct >> >> >> >>> d) Also, we seem to need a new algorithm to handle exogenous >>> >>> >>> > deterministic > > > >>> variables i.e. when M_.exo_det_nbr > 0 ? They are not currently >>> >>>
handled
> for > > > >>> k-order perturbation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> no, there is no estimation with exogenous deterministic variables >> >> >> Best >> >> Michel >> >> >> >>> Best regards >>> >>> George >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr >>> To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk; "Joe >>>
Pearlman"
>>> j.pearlman@londonmet.ac.uk >>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:46 AM >>> Subject: Re: lyapunov kalman filter options >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Thanks George, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> .... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> For the next steps, I think that you have now all elements to co
de
>>>> >>>>
a
> C++ > > > >>>> version of DsgeLikelihood.m Of course you should restrict it to >>>>
the
>>>> > case > > > >>>> of stationary models. >>>> >>>> As we haven't solved yet the issue around computing the steady >>>> >>>>
state,
>>>> for the time being, limit yourself to the case where the steady >>>> >>>>
state
>>>> doesn't change throughout estimation. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Michel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > >
Thanks George, this will be very useful at the higher level. However, for functions that are repeatedly called in a loop, it should be faster to pass the (few) parameters as arguments rather than searching the map inside a loop.
All the best,
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Hi all
I have been working on a fundamental approach to the further below outlined (see enclosed email below) issue of dynare structures, either global or local, being available inside C++ modules and have developed prototypes of two classes that provide for integration of the parameters inside one class and for their access and modification. (The location ands scope of the original Dynare param structure need not be global but can be also local to the calling Dynare matlab modules.)
They provide for:
- a generic abstract class GeneralParams as interface to parameters
repository from C++ :
class GeneralParams { map <string, int> params; const char *structName; public: GeneralParams(); GeneralParams( char *sBase, char * parStructName); virtual ~GeneralParams(); virtual void * getField(char * field)=0; virtual char * getCharField(char * field)=0; //returns General Matrix from sylv library virtual GeneralMatrix * getMatrixField(char * field)=0; // overloaded pramater update "set" methods: virtual void setField(char * field, char *newVal)=0; virtual void setField(char * field, double val)=0; virtual void setField(char * field, GeneralMatrix& val)=0; };
another dealing with the specifics of Matlab and Dynare:
use mexGetVariablePtr() to locate pointer to the structure rather than
copy whole structure locally into C++ memory space and makes them available read only-
- concatenates Dynare structure individual elements' names into a single map
mapping their names to the original structure pointers so that they can be located and retrieved individually directly form the Matlab memory space when if needed.
- Allows for structures' elements to be updated and propagated back inside
Matlab (locally or globally). This approach then uses mexGetVariable() to copy structures into C++ pace only when one of the structure values needs to be updated, and pus it back.
The generic interface abstract class leaves thus to the Dynare Matlab specific implementation to deal with any changes in Dynare structures and their locations that may occur in meantime.
The system still requires testing and it is in a rough prototype stage, and it is also, of course, open to further suggestions and modifications and I would like your suggestions before committing its design to the WikiPage and its code to thorough testing.
Best regards
George artilogica@btconnect.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk; "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:39 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Dear George,
thanks for the message. The issue needs to be discussed carefully.
- We are trying to get rid of most global variables and to pass oo_,
options_ and M_ as arguments. There is no good reason, why this has not been done yet in DsgeLikelihood.m 2) Besides a cleaner more robust code, we learned that accessing global variables in Matlab is expensive, and, most likely it is also true for Mex library 3) DsgeLikelihood++ is not primarily meant for calling from Matlab, but from a C++ version of dynare_estimation_1.m 4) There are only two of these variables that are changed in
DsgeLikelihood:
- M_.params, but a local version of modified params vector should
probably be an argument to dynare_resolve
- options_.kalman_algo that passes back the choice of Kalman algorithm.
We can probably find another mechanism to pass back this information to Matlab. 5) My preference would be to have one C++ class that contains all the parameters from M_, options_ and bayestopt_ (the latter needs to be rethought), needed by the C++ estimation functions. This class should be initialized at the instanciation of the top class (here dynare_estimation++) from M_ and options_ pointers passed as arguments 6) One needs to think about a similar mechanism for output variables. 7) I have three problems with the current structures that we use *M_ contains parameters describing the model (OK) *oo_ contains output. We may want to distinguish output that is only made available to the user and intermediary output that is meant to be used by other routines such as structure dr. It could make accessing these intermediary results faster
- options_ contains both real options_ and information on the current
state of Dynare computations (such as kalman_algo here), These should probably be separated
- bayestopt_ (and estim_params) is currently a mess and should be
reconsidered. It is mainly meant to contained parameters describing the priors that are deduced from user input passed by the preprocessor in estim_params 8) In summary, for now, in DsgeLikelihood++, you should simply refer to a C++ version of these objects that we will build later.
Best
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Dear Michel
Regarding design of the interface with Matlab (and Octave?), there are
many
variables from global structures that need to be referred to from
various
parts of estimation (and some updated too).
Is it ok if I make DsgeLikelihood++ system refer to options_, oo_ and
other
large structures (and some other variable) using mex functions mexGetVariable (and, if needed, mexPutVariable for updates) rather than trying to pass whole structures at the call time and creating C++
instances
of all or (large) subsets of their data.
e.g. const mxArray *mexExt = mexGetVariable("base", "mexext"); or const mxArray *M_ = mexGetVariable("caller", "M_");
That will reduce number of variables that need to be passed on call and writing code on their breaking down and passing around from mexFunction
to
the other modules.
I can optimise access to read-once only to reduce DLL-Matlab traffic too using a permanent class on the lines of:
class MexStruct { mxArray* mexStruct; const char *base; // one of: base, caller, global const char *structName; MexStruct( char *sBase, char * mexStructName) : base(sBase), structName(mexStructName) { mexStruct=mexGetVariable(base, structName); } mxArray * getMexStructField(char * field) { return mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); } void putMexStruct(){mexPutVariable(base, structName, mexStruct);} void setMexStructField(char * field, mxArray *newVal) { mxArray *fp = mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); mxDestroy(fp) mxSetField(mexStruct,0,field, newVal); } }
Some global variables in those structures also need to be set so the
above
class' methods can pass back updated global variables too at the end of
the
DsgaLikelihood. Also, as another advantage of this model, they can be
passed
back even in real time when if that may be needed for parallelisation.
Best regards
George Mob. +44(0)7951415480 artilogica@btconnect.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Hi George,
Dear Michel
- Re email below, due to problem of code for calling
<model>dynamic.dll,
needed by estimation but being in the same file with mexFunction in k_order_perturbation.cpp
Alternatives: a) I can use (a different) literal, e.g. KORDERPERT_MEX_FILE and compile k_order_perturbation.cpp for k_order_perturbation.dll
using
-DKORDERPERT_MEX_FILE and for DsgeLIkelihood/estimation without, - probably the easiest
solution
to implement and maintain until situation may change, - or,
b) I can split k_order_perturbation.cpp in two -
k_order_perturbation.cpp
with mexFunction and another file for calling <model>dynamic.dll which
will
be placed into korderpertlib.a and linked to DsgeLikelihood/estimation
too -
probably the optimal solution. or,
c) copy k_order_perturbation.cpp code for calling
<model>dynamic.dll.into
another file and keep it under DsgeLikelihood/estimation and have DsgeLikelihood refer to k-orderpertlib for the rest - this may
duplicate
effort on maintaining the dynamic.dll call management code but it is a
clear
cut.
I prefer 1.b) too
- Shall I treat C++ DsgeLIkelihood
a) as an extension of KF or KORDERPERT and put its code in one of
those
2
mex/source directories, or
b) create a new one, e.g. estimation, with its makefiile referring to
the
code and objects in the other two?
I suggest 1.b and to treat DsgeLIkelihood as a subdirectory of kalman directory which will refer to korderpertlib and kalman src.
I prefer 2.b, because DsgeLikelihood calls Kalman code and it is weird to have it in a subdirectory of kalman
All the best,
Michel
Please let me know if that is OK with you.
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk To: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:50 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Dear Michel
In k-order-perturbation makefile someone(you?) defined literal -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE for several cpp files, some of which do not contain mexFunction, e.g.
k_order_test_main.o: k_order_test_main.cpp gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ...
k_ord_dynare.o: k_ord_dynare.cpp k_ord_dynare.h gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ....
k_order_perturbation.o: k_order_perturbation.cpp
k_order_perturbation.h
gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ....
nlsolve.o: $(DYNAREPPDIR)/src/nlsolve.cpp gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ....
whereas only k_order_perturbation.cpp contains mexFunction().
What is that switch/literal used for?
I wandered if it is OK to use that literal and set a switch in k_order_perturbation.cpp to exclude mexFunction from compilation when
not
defined so that the file can be used with other mexFunctions such as
the
one
for DsgeLikelihood., e.g.
#ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE // exclude mexFunction for other applications extern "C" { void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[], int nrhs, const
mxArray
*prhs[]) { ... here goes mexFunction .: } }; // end of extern C #endif // ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE
Oterwise I can set another literal.
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:36 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
> Hi George, > > currently there are 3 different cases: > > 1) the steady state is not affected by estimation. This is the case > >
that
> we are implementing now > 2) A Matlab function is provided by the user to compute the steady > >
state
> as a function of model's parameters. > The implementation is cumbersome for the user and should become a > feature of the preprocessor. As long as the definitive version is >
not
> done, there is no point in losing time writing a C interface for >
that
> 3) The steady state must be solved for by calling a nonlinear >
equation
> solver. We will need to implement this as well, but it is a lower > priority. I would like to have the entire estimation chain in C++ > working first with just a constant steady state. > > All the best, > > Michel > > > G. Perendia wrote: > > > >> Dear Michel >> >> Regarding steady state, can you remind me why we can not use ss >> >> >> calculation
>> inside the k-order-perturb ? >> Can we than instead call Dynare Matlab steady state calculation, >> >> >> currently
>> called from resol.m, from estimate_1.m just before calling the >>
new
>>
C++
>> DsgeLikelihood (or from a new Matlab shell DsgeLikelihood_m.m that >>
is
>> then
>> calling C++ DsgeLikelihood) where new C++ resol will not call ss >> calculation as the Matlab one does? >> >> Best regards >> >> George >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr >> To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk >> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 8:37 PM >> Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hi George, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Should I suppose that the C++ DsgeLikelihood would also include >>>> >>>>
C++
>>>> versions of: >>>> resol.m >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> yes, this mainly calls first order solution in dr1.m >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> kalman_transition_matrix.m >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> yes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> and >>>> the 1st order part of the k-ord_pert version of dr1.m that will >>>>
be
>>>> >>>> >> calling >> >> >> >> >>>> k-order_perturbation for 1st order only, either as a DLL (as it >>>> >>>> >>>>
does
>> now) >> >> >> >> >>>> or incorporating it statically? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> first order solution should be linked statically >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> May I then also assume that >>>> >>>> a) set_state_space.m and the kstate preamble will in future be >>>> >>>> >>>> performed
>>>> before calling DsgeLikelihood, and not repeatedly within dr1 and >>>> >>>>
its
>> future >> >> >> >> >>>> C++ version - as I remember has already been planned? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> yes, we will have to implement such a mechanism >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> b) Ramsey will not be part of it for now >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> correct >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> c) I need to check but I think I may not need to code >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> transition_matrix.m >> >> >> >> >>>> and use the info 3/4 test currently in dr1: >>>> if nba > nyf info(1) = 3; >>>> elseif nba < nyf info(1) = 4; >>>> as a similar test already exist in k-ord-pert. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> probably correct >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> d) Also, we seem to need a new algorithm to handle exogenous >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> deterministic >> >> >> >> >>>> variables i.e. when M_.exo_det_nbr > 0 ? They are not currently >>>> >>>> >>>> handled
>> for >> >> >> >> >>>> k-order perturbation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> no, there is no estimation with exogenous deterministic variables >>> >>>
>>> Best >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr >>>> To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk; "Joe >>>> >>>>
Pearlman"
>>>> j.pearlman@londonmet.ac.uk >>>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:46 AM >>>> Subject: Re: lyapunov kalman filter options >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks George, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> .... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> For the next steps, I think that you have now all elements to co >>>>>
de
>>>>>
a
>> C++ >> >> >> >> >>>>> version of DsgeLikelihood.m Of course you should restrict it to >>>>> >>>>>
the
>> case >> >> >> >> >>>>> of stationary models. >>>>> >>>>> As we haven't solved yet the issue around computing the steady >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
state,
>>>>> for the time being, limit yourself to the case where the steady >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
state
>>>>> doesn't change throughout estimation. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Michel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Thanks Michel
Of course - this approach is for slightly higher level and more complex modules such as estimate or few other mexFunctions which then can pass the once retrieved individual parameters around, e.g. to the (lower level) functions they are calling in a loop (or not), so to reduce the overhead of the Matlab-2-C++ communication.
Another aim is also to reduce unnecessary copying of whole structures such as options_.
One current assumption is that the names of the main parameters in the Dynare structures are mutually unique across the spectrum - can we guarantee that in future?
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [DynareDev] C++ DsgeLikelihood and Dynare Parameters
Thanks George, this will be very useful at the higher level. However, for functions that are repeatedly called in a loop, it should be faster to pass the (few) parameters as arguments rather than searching the map inside a loop.
All the best,
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Hi all
I have been working on a fundamental approach to the further below
outlined
(see enclosed email below) issue of dynare structures, either global or local, being available inside C++ modules and have developed prototypes
of
two classes that provide for integration of the parameters inside one
class
and for their access and modification. (The location ands scope of the original Dynare param structure need not be global but can be also local
to
the calling Dynare matlab modules.)
They provide for:
- a generic abstract class GeneralParams as interface to parameters
repository from C++ :
class GeneralParams { map <string, int> params; const char *structName; public: GeneralParams(); GeneralParams( char *sBase, char * parStructName); virtual ~GeneralParams(); virtual void * getField(char * field)=0; virtual char * getCharField(char * field)=0; //returns General Matrix from sylv library virtual GeneralMatrix * getMatrixField(char * field)=0; // overloaded pramater update "set" methods: virtual void setField(char * field, char *newVal)=0; virtual void setField(char * field, double val)=0; virtual void setField(char * field, GeneralMatrix& val)=0; };
another dealing with the specifics of Matlab and Dynare:
use mexGetVariablePtr() to locate pointer to the structure rather than
copy whole structure locally into C++ memory space and makes them
available
read only-
- concatenates Dynare structure individual elements' names into a single
map
mapping their names to the original structure pointers so that they can
be
located and retrieved individually directly form the Matlab memory space when if needed.
- Allows for structures' elements to be updated and propagated back
inside
Matlab (locally or globally). This approach then uses mexGetVariable()
to
copy structures into C++ pace only when one of the structure values
needs
to be updated, and pus it back.
The generic interface abstract class leaves thus to the Dynare Matlab specific implementation to deal with any changes in Dynare structures
and
their locations that may occur in meantime.
The system still requires testing and it is in a rough prototype stage,
and
it is also, of course, open to further suggestions and modifications and
I
would like your suggestions before committing its design to the WikiPage
and
its code to thorough testing.
Best regards
George artilogica@btconnect.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk; "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:39 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Dear George,
thanks for the message. The issue needs to be discussed carefully.
- We are trying to get rid of most global variables and to pass oo_,
options_ and M_ as arguments. There is no good reason, why this has not been done yet in DsgeLikelihood.m 2) Besides a cleaner more robust code, we learned that accessing global variables in Matlab is expensive, and, most likely it is also true for Mex library 3) DsgeLikelihood++ is not primarily meant for calling from Matlab, but from a C++ version of dynare_estimation_1.m 4) There are only two of these variables that are changed in
DsgeLikelihood:
- M_.params, but a local version of modified params vector should
probably be an argument to dynare_resolve
- options_.kalman_algo that passes back the choice of Kalman algorithm.
We can probably find another mechanism to pass back this information to Matlab. 5) My preference would be to have one C++ class that contains all the parameters from M_, options_ and bayestopt_ (the latter needs to be rethought), needed by the C++ estimation functions. This class should
be
initialized at the instanciation of the top class (here dynare_estimation++) from M_ and options_ pointers passed as arguments 6) One needs to think about a similar mechanism for output variables. 7) I have three problems with the current structures that we use *M_ contains parameters describing the model (OK) *oo_ contains output. We may want to distinguish output that is only made available to the user and intermediary output that is meant to be used by other routines such as structure dr. It could make accessing these intermediary results faster
- options_ contains both real options_ and information on the current
state of Dynare computations (such as kalman_algo here), These should probably be separated
- bayestopt_ (and estim_params) is currently a mess and should be
reconsidered. It is mainly meant to contained parameters describing the priors that are deduced from user input passed by the preprocessor in estim_params 8) In summary, for now, in DsgeLikelihood++, you should simply refer to a C++ version of these objects that we will build later.
Best
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Dear Michel
Regarding design of the interface with Matlab (and Octave?), there are
many
variables from global structures that need to be referred to from
various
parts of estimation (and some updated too).
Is it ok if I make DsgeLikelihood++ system refer to options_, oo_ and
other
large structures (and some other variable) using mex functions mexGetVariable (and, if needed, mexPutVariable for updates) rather
than
trying to pass whole structures at the call time and creating C++
instances
of all or (large) subsets of their data.
e.g. const mxArray *mexExt = mexGetVariable("base", "mexext"); or const mxArray *M_ = mexGetVariable("caller", "M_");
That will reduce number of variables that need to be passed on call
and
writing code on their breaking down and passing around from
mexFunction
to
the other modules.
I can optimise access to read-once only to reduce DLL-Matlab traffic
too
using a permanent class on the lines of:
class MexStruct { mxArray* mexStruct; const char *base; // one of: base, caller, global const char *structName; MexStruct( char *sBase, char * mexStructName) : base(sBase), structName(mexStructName) { mexStruct=mexGetVariable(base, structName); } mxArray * getMexStructField(char * field) { return mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); } void putMexStruct(){mexPutVariable(base, structName, mexStruct);} void setMexStructField(char * field, mxArray *newVal) { mxArray *fp = mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); mxDestroy(fp) mxSetField(mexStruct,0,field, newVal); } }
Some global variables in those structures also need to be set so the
above
class' methods can pass back updated global variables too at the end
of
the
DsgaLikelihood. Also, as another advantage of this model, they can be
passed
back even in real time when if that may be needed for parallelisation.
Best regards
George Mob. +44(0)7951415480 artilogica@btconnect.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Hi George,
Dear Michel
- Re email below, due to problem of code for calling
<model>dynamic.dll,
needed by estimation but being in the same file with mexFunction in k_order_perturbation.cpp
Alternatives: a) I can use (a different) literal, e.g. KORDERPERT_MEX_FILE and compile k_order_perturbation.cpp for k_order_perturbation.dll
using
-DKORDERPERT_MEX_FILE and for DsgeLIkelihood/estimation without, - probably the easiest
solution
to implement and maintain until situation may change, - or,
b) I can split k_order_perturbation.cpp in two -
k_order_perturbation.cpp
with mexFunction and another file for calling <model>dynamic.dll
which
will
be placed into korderpertlib.a and linked to
DsgeLikelihood/estimation
too -
probably the optimal solution. or,
c) copy k_order_perturbation.cpp code for calling
<model>dynamic.dll.into
another file and keep it under DsgeLikelihood/estimation and have DsgeLikelihood refer to k-orderpertlib for the rest - this may
duplicate
effort on maintaining the dynamic.dll call management code but it is
a
clear
cut.
I prefer 1.b) too
- Shall I treat C++ DsgeLIkelihood
a) as an extension of KF or KORDERPERT and put its code in one of
those
2
mex/source directories, or
b) create a new one, e.g. estimation, with its makefiile referring
to
the
code and objects in the other two?
I suggest 1.b and to treat DsgeLIkelihood as a subdirectory of
kalman
directory which will refer to korderpertlib and kalman src.
I prefer 2.b, because DsgeLikelihood calls Kalman code and it is
weird
to have it in a subdirectory of kalman
All the best,
Michel
Please let me know if that is OK with you.
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk To: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:50 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
> Dear Michel > > In k-order-perturbation makefile someone(you?) defined literal > -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE > for several cpp files, some of which do not contain mexFunction,
e.g.
> > k_order_test_main.o: k_order_test_main.cpp > gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ... > > k_ord_dynare.o: k_ord_dynare.cpp k_ord_dynare.h > gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE .... > > k_order_perturbation.o: k_order_perturbation.cpp >
k_order_perturbation.h
> gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE .... > > nlsolve.o: $(DYNAREPPDIR)/src/nlsolve.cpp > gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE .... > > whereas only k_order_perturbation.cpp contains mexFunction(). > > What is that switch/literal used for? > > I wandered if it is OK to use that literal and set a switch in > k_order_perturbation.cpp to exclude mexFunction from compilation
when
> >
not
> defined so that the file can be used with other mexFunctions such
as
> >
the
one
> for DsgeLikelihood., e.g. > > #ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE // exclude mexFunction for other
applications
> extern "C" { > void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[], int nrhs, const > >
mxArray
> *prhs[]) > { > ... here goes mexFunction .: > } > }; // end of extern C > #endif // ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE > > Oterwise I can set another literal. > > Best regards > > George > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr > To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:36 PM > Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood > > > > > >> Hi George, >> >> currently there are 3 different cases: >> >> 1) the steady state is not affected by estimation. This is the
case
>> >>
that
>> we are implementing now >> 2) A Matlab function is provided by the user to compute the steady >> >>
state
>> as a function of model's parameters. >> The implementation is cumbersome for the user and should become a >> feature of the preprocessor. As long as the definitive version is >>
not
>> done, there is no point in losing time writing a C interface for >>
that
>> 3) The steady state must be solved for by calling a nonlinear >>
equation
>> solver. We will need to implement this as well, but it is a lower >> priority. I would like to have the entire estimation chain in C++ >> working first with just a constant steady state. >> >> All the best, >> >> Michel >> >> >> G. Perendia wrote: >> >> >> >>> Dear Michel >>> >>> Regarding steady state, can you remind me why we can not use ss >>> >>> >>> > calculation > > > >>> inside the k-order-perturb ? >>> Can we than instead call Dynare Matlab steady state calculation, >>> >>> >>> > currently > > > >>> called from resol.m, from estimate_1.m just before calling the >>>
new
>>> C++
>>> DsgeLikelihood (or from a new Matlab shell DsgeLikelihood_m.m
that
>>>
is
>>> > then > > > >>> calling C++ DsgeLikelihood) where new C++ resol will not call ss >>> calculation as the Matlab one does? >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> George >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr >>> To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk >>> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 8:37 PM >>> Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi George, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Should I suppose that the C++ DsgeLikelihood would also include >>>>> >>>>>
C++
>>>>> versions of: >>>>> resol.m >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> yes, this mainly calls first order solution in dr1.m >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> kalman_transition_matrix.m >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> yes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> and >>>>> the 1st order part of the k-ord_pert version of dr1.m that will >>>>>
be
>>>>> >>>>> >>> calling >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> k-order_perturbation for 1st order only, either as a DLL (as
it
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> does
>>> now) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> or incorporating it statically? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> first order solution should be linked statically >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> May I then also assume that >>>>> >>>>> a) set_state_space.m and the kstate preamble will in future be >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > performed > > > >>>>> before calling DsgeLikelihood, and not repeatedly within dr1
and
>>>>> >>>>>
its
>>> future >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> C++ version - as I remember has already been planned? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> yes, we will have to implement such a mechanism >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> b) Ramsey will not be part of it for now >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> correct >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> c) I need to check but I think I may not need to code >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> transition_matrix.m >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> and use the info 3/4 test currently in dr1: >>>>> if nba > nyf info(1) = 3; >>>>> elseif nba < nyf info(1) = 4; >>>>> as a similar test already exist in k-ord-pert. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> probably correct >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> d) Also, we seem to need a new algorithm to handle exogenous >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> deterministic >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> variables i.e. when M_.exo_det_nbr > 0 ? They are not currently >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > handled > > > >>> for >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> k-order perturbation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> no, there is no estimation with exogenous deterministic
variables
>>>> >>>>
>>>> Best >>>> >>>> Michel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> George >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr >>>>> To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk; "Joe >>>>> >>>>>
Pearlman"
>>>>> j.pearlman@londonmet.ac.uk >>>>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:46 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: lyapunov kalman filter options >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks George, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> .... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> For the next steps, I think that you have now all elements to
co
>>>>>>
de
>>>>>> a
>>> C++ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> version of DsgeLikelihood.m Of course you should restrict it
to
>>>>>> >>>>>>
the
>>> case >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> of stationary models. >>>>>> >>>>>> As we haven't solved yet the issue around computing the steady >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> state,
>>>>>> for the time being, limit yourself to the case where the
steady
>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> state
>>>>>> doesn't change throughout estimation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Michel >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dear George,
Of course - this approach is for slightly higher level and more complex modules such as estimate or few other mexFunctions which then can pass the once retrieved individual parameters around, e.g. to the (lower level) functions they are calling in a loop (or not), so to reduce the overhead of the Matlab-2-C++ communication.
Another aim is also to reduce unnecessary copying of whole structures such as options_.
One current assumption is that the names of the main parameters in the Dynare structures are mutually unique across the spectrum - can we guarantee that in future?
I'm not sure that the assumption is true currently. We have started using two level options names (in fact a Matlab structure in a structure). Maybe you should mimic that as well.
Cheers
Michel
Best regards
George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [DynareDev] C++ DsgeLikelihood and Dynare Parameters
Thanks George, this will be very useful at the higher level. However, for functions that are repeatedly called in a loop, it should be faster to pass the (few) parameters as arguments rather than searching the map inside a loop.
All the best,
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Hi all
I have been working on a fundamental approach to the further below
outlined
(see enclosed email below) issue of dynare structures, either global or local, being available inside C++ modules and have developed prototypes
of
two classes that provide for integration of the parameters inside one
class
and for their access and modification. (The location ands scope of the original Dynare param structure need not be global but can be also local
to
the calling Dynare matlab modules.)
They provide for:
- a generic abstract class GeneralParams as interface to parameters
repository from C++ :
class GeneralParams { map <string, int> params; const char *structName; public: GeneralParams(); GeneralParams( char *sBase, char * parStructName); virtual ~GeneralParams(); virtual void * getField(char * field)=0; virtual char * getCharField(char * field)=0; //returns General Matrix from sylv library virtual GeneralMatrix * getMatrixField(char * field)=0; // overloaded pramater update "set" methods: virtual void setField(char * field, char *newVal)=0; virtual void setField(char * field, double val)=0; virtual void setField(char * field, GeneralMatrix& val)=0; };
another dealing with the specifics of Matlab and Dynare:
use mexGetVariablePtr() to locate pointer to the structure rather than
copy whole structure locally into C++ memory space and makes them
available
read only-
- concatenates Dynare structure individual elements' names into a single
map
mapping their names to the original structure pointers so that they can
be
located and retrieved individually directly form the Matlab memory space when if needed.
- Allows for structures' elements to be updated and propagated back
inside
Matlab (locally or globally). This approach then uses mexGetVariable()
to
copy structures into C++ pace only when one of the structure values
needs
to be updated, and pus it back.
The generic interface abstract class leaves thus to the Dynare Matlab specific implementation to deal with any changes in Dynare structures
and
their locations that may occur in meantime.
The system still requires testing and it is in a rough prototype stage,
and
it is also, of course, open to further suggestions and modifications and
I
would like your suggestions before committing its design to the WikiPage
and
its code to thorough testing.
Best regards
George artilogica@btconnect.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk; "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:39 PM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Dear George,
thanks for the message. The issue needs to be discussed carefully.
- We are trying to get rid of most global variables and to pass oo_,
options_ and M_ as arguments. There is no good reason, why this has not been done yet in DsgeLikelihood.m 2) Besides a cleaner more robust code, we learned that accessing global variables in Matlab is expensive, and, most likely it is also true for Mex library 3) DsgeLikelihood++ is not primarily meant for calling from Matlab, but from a C++ version of dynare_estimation_1.m 4) There are only two of these variables that are changed in
DsgeLikelihood:
- M_.params, but a local version of modified params vector should
probably be an argument to dynare_resolve
- options_.kalman_algo that passes back the choice of Kalman algorithm.
We can probably find another mechanism to pass back this information to Matlab. 5) My preference would be to have one C++ class that contains all the parameters from M_, options_ and bayestopt_ (the latter needs to be rethought), needed by the C++ estimation functions. This class should
be
initialized at the instanciation of the top class (here dynare_estimation++) from M_ and options_ pointers passed as arguments 6) One needs to think about a similar mechanism for output variables. 7) I have three problems with the current structures that we use *M_ contains parameters describing the model (OK) *oo_ contains output. We may want to distinguish output that is only made available to the user and intermediary output that is meant to be used by other routines such as structure dr. It could make accessing these intermediary results faster
- options_ contains both real options_ and information on the current
state of Dynare computations (such as kalman_algo here), These should probably be separated
- bayestopt_ (and estim_params) is currently a mess and should be
reconsidered. It is mainly meant to contained parameters describing the priors that are deduced from user input passed by the preprocessor in estim_params 8) In summary, for now, in DsgeLikelihood++, you should simply refer to a C++ version of these objects that we will build later.
Best
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Dear Michel
Regarding design of the interface with Matlab (and Octave?), there are
many
variables from global structures that need to be referred to from
various
parts of estimation (and some updated too).
Is it ok if I make DsgeLikelihood++ system refer to options_, oo_ and
other
large structures (and some other variable) using mex functions mexGetVariable (and, if needed, mexPutVariable for updates) rather
than
trying to pass whole structures at the call time and creating C++
instances
of all or (large) subsets of their data.
e.g. const mxArray *mexExt = mexGetVariable("base", "mexext"); or const mxArray *M_ = mexGetVariable("caller", "M_");
That will reduce number of variables that need to be passed on call
and
writing code on their breaking down and passing around from
mexFunction
to
the other modules.
I can optimise access to read-once only to reduce DLL-Matlab traffic
too
using a permanent class on the lines of:
class MexStruct { mxArray* mexStruct; const char *base; // one of: base, caller, global const char *structName; MexStruct( char *sBase, char * mexStructName) : base(sBase), structName(mexStructName) { mexStruct=mexGetVariable(base, structName); } mxArray * getMexStructField(char * field) { return mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); } void putMexStruct(){mexPutVariable(base, structName, mexStruct);} void setMexStructField(char * field, mxArray *newVal) { mxArray *fp = mxGetField(mexStruct, 0, field); mxDestroy(fp) mxSetField(mexStruct,0,field, newVal); } }
Some global variables in those structures also need to be set so the
above
class' methods can pass back updated global variables too at the end
of
the
DsgaLikelihood. Also, as another advantage of this model, they can be
passed
back even in real time when if that may be needed for parallelisation.
Best regards
George Mob. +44(0)7951415480 artilogica@btconnect.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood
Hi George,
> Dear Michel > > 1) Re email below, due to problem of code for calling > > >
<model>dynamic.dll,
> needed by estimation but being in the same file with mexFunction in > k_order_perturbation.cpp > > Alternatives: > a) I can use (a different) literal, e.g. > KORDERPERT_MEX_FILE > and compile k_order_perturbation.cpp for k_order_perturbation.dll > >
using
> -DKORDERPERT_MEX_FILE > and for DsgeLIkelihood/estimation without, - probably the easiest > > >
solution
> to implement and maintain until situation may change, - or, > > b) I can split k_order_perturbation.cpp in two - > > >
k_order_perturbation.cpp
> with mexFunction and another file for calling <model>dynamic.dll >
which
>
will
> be placed into korderpertlib.a and linked to >
DsgeLikelihood/estimation
>
too -
> probably the optimal solution. or, > > c) copy k_order_perturbation.cpp code for calling > > >
<model>dynamic.dll.into
> another file and keep it under DsgeLikelihood/estimation and have > DsgeLikelihood refer to k-orderpertlib for the rest - this may > >
duplicate
> effort on maintaining the dynamic.dll call management code but it is >
a
>
clear
> cut. > > > > > I prefer 1.b) too
> 2) Shall I treat C++ DsgeLIkelihood > a) as an extension of KF or KORDERPERT and put its code in one of > >
those
2
> mex/source directories, or > > b) create a new one, e.g. estimation, with its makefiile referring >
to
>
the
> code and objects in the other two? > > > I suggest 1.b and to treat DsgeLIkelihood as a subdirectory of >
kalman
> directory which will refer to korderpertlib and kalman src. > > > > > I prefer 2.b, because DsgeLikelihood calls Kalman code and it is
weird
to have it in a subdirectory of kalman
All the best,
Michel
> Please let me know if that is OK with you. > > Best regards > > George > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk > To: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:50 PM > Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood > > > > > > >> Dear Michel >> >> In k-order-perturbation makefile someone(you?) defined literal >> -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE >> for several cpp files, some of which do not contain mexFunction, >>
e.g.
>> k_order_test_main.o: k_order_test_main.cpp >> gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE ... >> >> k_ord_dynare.o: k_ord_dynare.cpp k_ord_dynare.h >> gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE .... >> >> k_order_perturbation.o: k_order_perturbation.cpp >> >>
k_order_perturbation.h
>> gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE .... >> >> nlsolve.o: $(DYNAREPPDIR)/src/nlsolve.cpp >> gcc -DMATLAB_MEX_FILE .... >> >> whereas only k_order_perturbation.cpp contains mexFunction(). >> >> What is that switch/literal used for? >> >> I wandered if it is OK to use that literal and set a switch in >> k_order_perturbation.cpp to exclude mexFunction from compilation >>
when
>>
not
>> defined so that the file can be used with other mexFunctions such >>
as
>>
the
> one > > > > >> for DsgeLikelihood., e.g. >> >> #ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE // exclude mexFunction for other >>
applications
>> extern "C" { >> void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[], int nrhs, const >> >> >>
mxArray
>> *prhs[]) >> { >> ... here goes mexFunction .: >> } >> }; // end of extern C >> #endif // ifdef MATLAB_MEX_FILE >> >> Oterwise I can set another literal. >> >> Best regards >> >> George >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr >> To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:36 PM >> Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hi George, >>> >>> currently there are 3 different cases: >>> >>> 1) the steady state is not affected by estimation. This is the >>>
case
>>>
that
>>> we are implementing now >>> 2) A Matlab function is provided by the user to compute the steady >>> >>> >>>
state
>>> as a function of model's parameters. >>> The implementation is cumbersome for the user and should become a >>> feature of the preprocessor. As long as the definitive version is >>> >>>
not
>>> done, there is no point in losing time writing a C interface for >>> >>>
that
>>> 3) The steady state must be solved for by calling a nonlinear >>> >>>
equation
>>> solver. We will need to implement this as well, but it is a lower >>> priority. I would like to have the entire estimation chain in C++ >>> working first with just a constant steady state. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> G. Perendia wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Dear Michel >>>> >>>> Regarding steady state, can you remind me why we can not use ss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> calculation >> >> >> >> >>>> inside the k-order-perturb ? >>>> Can we than instead call Dynare Matlab steady state calculation, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> currently >> >> >> >> >>>> called from resol.m, from estimate_1.m just before calling the >>>> >>>>
new
> C++ > > > > >>>> DsgeLikelihood (or from a new Matlab shell DsgeLikelihood_m.m >>>>
that
is
>> then >> >> >> >> >>>> calling C++ DsgeLikelihood) where new C++ resol will not call ss >>>> calculation as the Matlab one does? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr >>>> To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk >>>> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 8:37 PM >>>> Subject: Re: C++ DsgeLikelihood >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi George, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Should I suppose that the C++ DsgeLikelihood would also include >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
C++
>>>>>> versions of: >>>>>> resol.m >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> yes, this mainly calls first order solution in dr1.m >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> kalman_transition_matrix.m >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> yes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> the 1st order part of the k-ord_pert version of dr1.m that will >>>>>> >>>>>>
be
>>>>>> >>>> calling >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> k-order_perturbation for 1st order only, either as a DLL (as >>>>>>
it
>>>>>> >>>>>> > does > > > > >>>> now) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> or incorporating it statically? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> first order solution should be linked statically >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> May I then also assume that >>>>>> >>>>>> a) set_state_space.m and the kstate preamble will in future be >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> performed >> >> >> >> >>>>>> before calling DsgeLikelihood, and not repeatedly within dr1 >>>>>>
and
>>>>>>
its
>>>> future >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> C++ version - as I remember has already been planned? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> yes, we will have to implement such a mechanism >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> b) Ramsey will not be part of it for now >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> correct >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> c) I need to check but I think I may not need to code >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> transition_matrix.m >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> and use the info 3/4 test currently in dr1: >>>>>> if nba > nyf info(1) = 3; >>>>>> elseif nba < nyf info(1) = 4; >>>>>> as a similar test already exist in k-ord-pert. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> probably correct >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> d) Also, we seem to need a new algorithm to handle exogenous >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> deterministic >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> variables i.e. when M_.exo_det_nbr > 0 ? They are not currently >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> handled >> >> >> >> >>>> for >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> k-order perturbation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> no, there is no estimation with exogenous deterministic >>>>>
variables
>>>>>
>>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Michel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> George >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr >>>>>> To: "G. Perendia" george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk; "Joe >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
Pearlman"
>>>>>> j.pearlman@londonmet.ac.uk >>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:46 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: lyapunov kalman filter options >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks George, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> .... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> For the next steps, I think that you have now all elements to >>>>>>>
co
de
> a > > > > >>>> C++ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> version of DsgeLikelihood.m Of course you should restrict it >>>>>>>
to
>>>>>>>
the
>>>> case >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stationary models. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As we haven't solved yet the issue around computing the steady >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > state, > > > > >>>>>>> for the time being, limit yourself to the case where the >>>>>>>
steady
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > state > > > > >>>>>>> doesn't change throughout estimation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Hi George,
Le lundi 14 septembre 2009 à 12:11 +0100, G. Perendia a écrit :
I have been working on a fundamental approach to the further below outlined (see enclosed email below) issue of dynare structures, either global or local, being available inside C++ modules and have developed prototypes of two classes that provide for integration of the parameters inside one class and for their access and modification. (The location ands scope of the original Dynare param structure need not be global but can be also local to the calling Dynare matlab modules.)
In your class prototype, you should use a "const string &" rather than a "char *" for the "field" parameter. In C++ code it is much easier to manipulate strings than char*. And passing the argument by reference doesn't involve any performance loss, since it is technically equivalent to passing a pointer.
As a general rule, I agree with Michel that we should generally pass arguments to functions, rather than using global structures to access a big database of all possible options. The main advantage is that of modularity: the function prototype immediately shows us which are the options used in the function, and which are the options which are not. If we use the same big set of options for all functions (such as we currently do with "options_" in the M-file, or such as the design which you have in mind), we create interdependencies between all parts of the code, which is the very opposite of modularity.
So I think that in the design of C++ library, we should break with the philosophy of passing all options to all functions, and only pass what is necessary as arguments. In the case where you need to pass many options at a time, you can create a special structure for storing them, knowing that a passing-by-reference is very efficient in terms of memory and speed.
Best,
Hi Sebastien
Thanks,
1) C++ mexGetVariablePtr() can access either pointers to global structure (with option global), or pointer to the structure local to the calling Matlab function (with option local) which would be the same as what would be passed to the called C++ function as argument.
If C++ code changes and needs additional parameter, then it only need to call different param from the interface.
However, if we used a specially created structure of all needed params, it would need to be changed too.
2) Other advantage of the mexGetVariablePtr() based interface is that it allows for easy update of the structures (needed by estimate), including real-time, interactive updates if any future parallelisation requires that real time facility.
3) I will however start working on altering the code as you suggested and create one structure to pass it from Matlab, i.e. create it before calling C++.
Is it ok if I still use mexGetVariablePtr() to pass it by reference or shall I pass it as argument (also by reference) anyway? An alternative is to use mexGetVariable() which copies the structures locally.
I would still retain the interface abstract class and part of its current implementation and just re-implement it to use the single structure passed as argument - I expect we do not want to clutter the estimation C++ code with too many Matlab dependent mex functions.
Best regards
George ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sébastien Villemot" sebastien.villemot@ens.fr To: "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [DynareDev] C++ DsgeLikelihood and Dynare Parameters
Hi George,
Le lundi 14 septembre 2009 à 12:11 +0100, G. Perendia a écrit :
I have been working on a fundamental approach to the further below
outlined
(see enclosed email below) issue of dynare structures, either global or local, being available inside C++ modules and have developed prototypes of two classes that provide for integration of the parameters inside one
class
and for their access and modification. (The location ands scope of the original Dynare param structure need not be global but can be also local
to
the calling Dynare matlab modules.)
In your class prototype, you should use a "const string &" rather than a "char *" for the "field" parameter. In C++ code it is much easier to manipulate strings than char*. And passing the argument by reference doesn't involve any performance loss, since it is technically equivalent to passing a pointer.
As a general rule, I agree with Michel that we should generally pass arguments to functions, rather than using global structures to access a big database of all possible options. The main advantage is that of modularity: the function prototype immediately shows us which are the options used in the function, and which are the options which are not. If we use the same big set of options for all functions (such as we currently do with "options_" in the M-file, or such as the design which you have in mind), we create interdependencies between all parts of the code, which is the very opposite of modularity.
So I think that in the design of C++ library, we should break with the philosophy of passing all options to all functions, and only pass what is necessary as arguments. In the case where you need to pass many options at a time, you can create a special structure for storing them, knowing that a passing-by-reference is very efficient in terms of memory and speed.
Best,
Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 12:01 +0100, G. Perendia a écrit :
- C++ mexGetVariablePtr() can access either pointers to global structure
(with option global), or pointer to the structure local to the calling Matlab function (with option local) which would be the same as what would be passed to the called C++ function as argument.
If C++ code changes and needs additional parameter, then it only need to call different param from the interface.
This is precisely what I don't like in the general case. In some cases, I think it is better to have the explicit set of parameters in the function prototype (as arguments), so that one can see immediately what are those used by the function.
For example suppose that an internal function of the DLL uses only one option. It makes no sense to pass the pointer to a structure containing all the options used by the calling Matlab function, because it gives the impression that this function depends on the whole options set: this breaks modularity...
But as a general rule I don't claim that your framework is useless. I think that you have to make different decisions depending on the situation: * if all the functions in the calling tree of a given DLL need all the options passed by the calling Matlab function, then it makes sense to use your framework * on the contrary, if the deepest functions in the calling tree need only a small subset of the options passed by the calling Matlab function, then I think you should disaggregate the options and pass as arguments to the deepest functions only those that are needed.
- Other advantage of the mexGetVariablePtr() based interface is that it
allows for easy update of the structures (needed by estimate), including real-time, interactive updates if any future parallelisation requires that real time facility.
This is a good point provided that you add lock/mutex features.
- I will however start working on altering the code as you suggested and
create one structure to pass it from Matlab, i.e. create it before calling C++.
This is not my point, as I hope to have made clear in this message.
Is it ok if I still use mexGetVariablePtr() to pass it by reference or shall I pass it as argument (also by reference) anyway? An alternative is to use mexGetVariable() which copies the structures locally.
Of course mexGetVariablePtr() is better, in order to avoid unnecessary copying.
Also note that, as a general rule, my opinion is that we should use passing-by-reference when possible. Passing-by-pointer and passing-by-value (except for integers and doubles) should be avoided whenever possible.
Thanks Sebastien
I would like us to clarify our understanding:
1) For start, I believe that there is a certain (however small) development, maintenance and performance overhead in maintaining strict "Need-to-know" data policy all the way through.
Hence, as an optimal solution (as per my response to Michel's email yesterday and I believe in line of what you wrote), I believe that:
a) we should still use the new GeneralParams data tree interface framework to manage interface to the pointer(s) to the structure(s) (i.e. one or more, see below) LOCAL to the calling Matlab function, and,
b) only the high level functions should "know" the reference to the GeneralParams structure (whose implementation contains pointer(s) to the Dynare structure(s)) and they use it to query only the params needed locally and/or to be passed as arguments to the lower level functions they call either in loop or ad-hoc.
3) Still outstanding issues for clarification are:
a) should we start imposing the "NTK" policy as high as Matlab Dynare calling function and there create a single new structure containing only the params needed by C++ estimate before calling it, or leave to C++ to manage the access on the as need-to-know basis.
b) Again, should we use mexGetVariablePtr() to query structure(s)' pointer(s), or pass the structure(s) as argument(s) - i.e. as pointer(s) in either case?
I now expect it is both more in line with the NTK policy and also quicker to pass them as arguments as we can reduce both, the freedom of access and the number of calls to Matlab respectively.
PS: sorry for misnomer: mexGetVariablePtr(), as its name suggests, passes pointer, not C++ type reference - I only referred to "by reference" in a more generic fashion, just as opposed to "by value" (as mexGetVariable() does) and since, as I understand, Matlab can not pass C++ references to C++ but only pointers.
Regards George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sébastien Villemot" sebastien.villemot@ens.fr To: "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [DynareDev] C++ DsgeLikelihood and Dynare Parameters
Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 12:01 +0100, G. Perendia a écrit :
- C++ mexGetVariablePtr() can access either pointers to global structure
(with option global), or pointer to the structure local to the calling Matlab function (with option local) which would be the same as what would be passed to the called C++ function as argument.
If C++ code changes and needs additional parameter, then it only need to call different param from the interface.
This is precisely what I don't like in the general case. In some cases, I think it is better to have the explicit set of parameters in the function prototype (as arguments), so that one can see immediately what are those used by the function.
For example suppose that an internal function of the DLL uses only one option. It makes no sense to pass the pointer to a structure containing all the options used by the calling Matlab function, because it gives the impression that this function depends on the whole options set: this breaks modularity...
But as a general rule I don't claim that your framework is useless. I think that you have to make different decisions depending on the situation: * if all the functions in the calling tree of a given DLL need all the options passed by the calling Matlab function, then it makes sense to use your framework * on the contrary, if the deepest functions in the calling tree need only a small subset of the options passed by the calling Matlab function, then I think you should disaggregate the options and pass as arguments to the deepest functions only those that are needed.
- Other advantage of the mexGetVariablePtr() based interface is that it
allows for easy update of the structures (needed by estimate), including real-time, interactive updates if any future parallelisation requires that real time facility.
This is a good point provided that you add lock/mutex features.
- I will however start working on altering the code as you suggested and
create one structure to pass it from Matlab, i.e. create it before calling C++.
This is not my point, as I hope to have made clear in this message.
Is it ok if I still use mexGetVariablePtr() to pass it by reference or shall I pass it as argument (also by reference) anyway? An alternative is to use mexGetVariable() which copies the structures locally.
Of course mexGetVariablePtr() is better, in order to avoid unnecessary copying.
Also note that, as a general rule, my opinion is that we should use passing-by-reference when possible. Passing-by-pointer and passing-by-value (except for integers and doubles) should be avoided whenever possible.
Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 15:36 +0100, G. Perendia a écrit :
- For start, I believe that there is a certain (however small) development,
maintenance and performance overhead in maintaining strict "Need-to-know" data policy all the way through.
Hence, as an optimal solution (as per my response to Michel's email yesterday and I believe in line of what you wrote), I believe that:
a) we should still use the new GeneralParams data tree interface framework to manage interface to the pointer(s) to the structure(s) (i.e. one or more, see below) LOCAL to the calling Matlab function, and,
b) only the high level functions should "know" the reference to the GeneralParams structure (whose implementation contains pointer(s) to the Dynare structure(s)) and they use it to query only the params needed locally and/or to be passed as arguments to the lower level functions they call either in loop or ad-hoc.
I agree with that solution.
- Still outstanding issues for clarification are:
a) should we start imposing the "NTK" policy as high as Matlab Dynare calling function and there create a single new structure containing only the params needed by C++ estimate before calling it, or leave to C++ to manage the access on the as need-to-know basis.
The goal is to extend this policy throughout all the code, even the M-files (ideally we should drop the "options_" structure). So try to apply it as high as you can.
b) Again, should we use mexGetVariablePtr() to query structure(s)' pointer(s), or pass the structure(s) as argument(s) - i.e. as pointer(s) in either case?
I'm not sure to understand your question correctly, but I think that mexGetVariablePtr() should be called only once at the top-level for getting the mxArray pointer to the structure, and then pass the mxArray pointer to subroutines.
PS: sorry for misnomer: mexGetVariablePtr(), as its name suggests, passes pointer, not C++ type reference - I only referred to "by reference" in a more generic fashion, just as opposed to "by value" (as mexGetVariable() does) and since, as I understand, Matlab can not pass C++ references to C++ but only pointers.
Of course, in this case, you can escape using a pointer. But in your own code I strongly encourage you to avoid pointers and use references whenever possible.
Best,
Hi Sebastien
Thanks for the clarifications
Re Q. 3.b) as an extension to this question I also wrote: "I now expect it is both more in line with the NTK policy and also quicker to pass them [the pointers to Matlab structures] as arguments as we can reduce both, the freedom of access [by the C++] and the number of calls to Matlab respectively."
Thus, I suggested as quicker and passing the structure pointers as arguments (by pointer) instead of using multiple calls to mexGetVariablePtr().
Is that OK then?
Best regards
George ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sébastien Villemot" sebastien.villemot@ens.fr To: "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [DynareDev] C++ DsgeLikelihood and Dynare Parameters
Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 15:36 +0100, G. Perendia a écrit :
- For start, I believe that there is a certain (however small)
development,
maintenance and performance overhead in maintaining strict "Need-to-know" data policy all the way through.
Hence, as an optimal solution (as per my response to Michel's email yesterday and I believe in line of what you wrote), I believe that:
a) we should still use the new GeneralParams data tree interface
framework
to manage interface to the pointer(s) to the structure(s) (i.e. one or
more,
see below) LOCAL to the calling Matlab function, and,
b) only the high level functions should "know" the reference to the GeneralParams structure (whose implementation contains pointer(s) to the Dynare structure(s)) and they use it to query only the params needed
locally
and/or to be passed as arguments to the lower level functions they call either in loop or ad-hoc.
I agree with that solution.
- Still outstanding issues for clarification are:
a) should we start imposing the "NTK" policy as high as Matlab Dynare calling function and there create a single new structure containing only
the
params needed by C++ estimate before calling it, or leave to C++ to manage the access on the as need-to-know basis.
The goal is to extend this policy throughout all the code, even the M-files (ideally we should drop the "options_" structure). So try to apply it as high as you can.
b) Again, should we use mexGetVariablePtr() to query structure(s)' pointer(s), or pass the structure(s) as argument(s) - i.e. as pointer(s)
in
either case?
I'm not sure to understand your question correctly, but I think that mexGetVariablePtr() should be called only once at the top-level for getting the mxArray pointer to the structure, and then pass the mxArray pointer to subroutines.
PS: sorry for misnomer: mexGetVariablePtr(), as its name suggests, passes pointer, not C++ type reference - I only referred to "by reference" in a more generic fashion, just as opposed to "by value" (as mexGetVariable() does) and since, as I understand, Matlab can not pass C++ references to
C++
but only pointers.
Of course, in this case, you can escape using a pointer. But in your own code I strongly encourage you to avoid pointers and use references whenever possible.
Best,
Le mercredi 16 septembre 2009 à 10:22 +0100, G. Perendia a écrit :
Re Q. 3.b) as an extension to this question I also wrote: "I now expect it is both more in line with the NTK policy and also quicker to pass them [the pointers to Matlab structures] as arguments as we can reduce both, the freedom of access [by the C++] and the number of calls to Matlab respectively."
Thus, I suggested as quicker and passing the structure pointers as arguments (by pointer) instead of using multiple calls to mexGetVariablePtr().
Is that OK then?
If by structure pointers you mean the "mxArray*", then I agree with that.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sébastien Villemot" sebastien.villemot@ens.fr To: "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [DynareDev] C++ DsgeLikelihood and Dynare Parameters
Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 15:36 +0100, G. Perendia a écrit :
- For start, I believe that there is a certain (however small)
development,
maintenance and performance overhead in maintaining strict "Need-to-know" data policy all the way through.
Hence, as an optimal solution (as per my response to Michel's email yesterday and I believe in line of what you wrote), I believe that:
a) we should still use the new GeneralParams data tree interface
framework
to manage interface to the pointer(s) to the structure(s) (i.e. one or
more,
see below) LOCAL to the calling Matlab function, and,
b) only the high level functions should "know" the reference to the GeneralParams structure (whose implementation contains pointer(s) to the Dynare structure(s)) and they use it to query only the params needed
locally
and/or to be passed as arguments to the lower level functions they call either in loop or ad-hoc.
I agree with that solution.
- Still outstanding issues for clarification are:
a) should we start imposing the "NTK" policy as high as Matlab Dynare calling function and there create a single new structure containing only
the
params needed by C++ estimate before calling it, or leave to C++ to manage the access on the as need-to-know basis.
The goal is to extend this policy throughout all the code, even the M-files (ideally we should drop the "options_" structure). So try to apply it as high as you can.
b) Again, should we use mexGetVariablePtr() to query structure(s)' pointer(s), or pass the structure(s) as argument(s) - i.e. as pointer(s)
in
either case?
I'm not sure to understand your question correctly, but I think that mexGetVariablePtr() should be called only once at the top-level for getting the mxArray pointer to the structure, and then pass the mxArray pointer to subroutines.
PS: sorry for misnomer: mexGetVariablePtr(), as its name suggests, passes pointer, not C++ type reference - I only referred to "by reference" in a more generic fashion, just as opposed to "by value" (as mexGetVariable() does) and since, as I understand, Matlab can not pass C++ references to
C++
but only pointers.
Of course, in this case, you can escape using a pointer. But in your own code I strongly encourage you to avoid pointers and use references whenever possible.
Best,
Hi
I am having problem creating single parameters structure for DsgeLikelihood as some names are not unique.
I. e. I only encountered a problem with "param_names" field which exists in both, M_ and estim_params_ though it does not seem to be populated and used in the latter - can it be ignored (i.e. unused?), removed from estim_params_ or renamed to enforce name uniqueness?
Best regards
George
Ho George Why don't you keep estim_params_ as an intermediary structure that you add to your main structrure ?
Best
Michel Juillard
On Nov 4, 2009, at 17:02, "G. Perendia" <george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk
wrote:
Hi
I am having problem creating single parameters structure for DsgeLikelihood as some names are not unique.
I. e. I only encountered a problem with "param_names" field which exists in both, M_ and estim_params_ though it does not seem to be populated and used in the latter - can it be ignored (i.e. unused?), removed from estim_params_ or renamed to enforce name uniqueness?
Best regards
George
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
See my comments below Best regards George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr
Ho George Why don't you keep estim_params_ as an intermediary structure that you add to your main structrure ?
I do not quite understand the notion of "intermediary structure that you add to your main structrure" and, so far, I am afraid that could complicate the issue greatly since estim_params is a stand-alone (i.e. not part of another structure such as dr1 is part of oo_).
If I create separate structure for estim_params we are going back to many structures situation.
E.g. dr1 is special case, handled as a separate "sub-structure" variable extracted from the main structure as its single field, (initially taken form oo_).
In general, I think that it is not good to start making exceptions to policy agreed after long discussion aimed to achieve the single params structure and here have one single parameter field which is causing problem which also appear unused - it is left empty and there appear to be no references to the estim_params_.param_names in Dynare matlab code!
Best
Michel Juillard
On Nov 4, 2009, at 17:02, "G. Perendia" <george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk
wrote:
Hi
I am having problem creating single parameters structure for DsgeLikelihood as some names are not unique.
I. e. I only encountered a problem with "param_names" field which exists in both, M_ and estim_params_ though it does not seem to be populated and used in the latter - can it be ignored (i.e. unused?), removed from estim_params_ or renamed to enforce name uniqueness?
Best regards
George
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
You are right. As far as I can see estim_params_.param_names and estim_params_.user_param_names are initialized as empty matrix by the preprocessor but not used anywhere. You can safely ignore them
Best
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
See my comments below Best regards George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr
Ho George Why don't you keep estim_params_ as an intermediary structure that you add to your main structrure ?
I do not quite understand the notion of "intermediary structure that you add to your main structrure" and, so far, I am afraid that could complicate the issue greatly since estim_params is a stand-alone (i.e. not part of another structure such as dr1 is part of oo_).
If I create separate structure for estim_params we are going back to many structures situation.
E.g. dr1 is special case, handled as a separate "sub-structure" variable extracted from the main structure as its single field, (initially taken form oo_).
In general, I think that it is not good to start making exceptions to policy agreed after long discussion aimed to achieve the single params structure and here have one single parameter field which is causing problem which also appear unused - it is left empty and there appear to be no references to the estim_params_.param_names in Dynare matlab code!
Best
Michel Juillard
On Nov 4, 2009, at 17:02, "G. Perendia" <george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk
wrote:
Hi
I am having problem creating single parameters structure for DsgeLikelihood as some names are not unique.
I. e. I only encountered a problem with "param_names" field which exists in both, M_ and estim_params_ though it does not seem to be populated and used in the latter - can it be ignored (i.e. unused?), removed from estim_params_ or renamed to enforce name uniqueness?
Best regards
George
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Thanks Michel
Can param_names then be removed from the estim_params_ structure in Dynare (pre-processor) too (or renamed to a unique name) to avoid possible confusion?
Best regards George ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [DynareDev] C++ DsgeLikelihood and Dynare Parameters
You are right. As far as I can see estim_params_.param_names and estim_params_.user_param_names are initialized as empty matrix by the preprocessor but not used anywhere. You can safely ignore them
Best
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
See my comments below Best regards George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr
Ho George Why don't you keep estim_params_ as an intermediary structure that you add to your main structrure ?
I do not quite understand the notion of "intermediary structure that you add to your main structrure" and, so far, I am afraid that could
complicate
the issue greatly since estim_params is a stand-alone (i.e. not part of another structure such as dr1 is part of oo_).
If I create separate structure for estim_params we are going back to
many
structures situation.
E.g. dr1 is special case, handled as a separate "sub-structure" variable extracted from the main structure as its single field, (initially taken
form
oo_).
In general, I think that it is not good to start making exceptions to
policy
agreed after long discussion aimed to achieve the single params
structure
and here have one single parameter field which is causing problem which
also
appear unused - it is left empty and there appear to be no references to
the
estim_params_.param_names in Dynare matlab code!
Best
Michel Juillard
On Nov 4, 2009, at 17:02, "G. Perendia"
<george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk
wrote:
Hi
I am having problem creating single parameters structure for DsgeLikelihood as some names are not unique.
I. e. I only encountered a problem with "param_names" field which exists in both, M_ and estim_params_ though it does not seem to be populated and used in the latter - can it be ignored (i.e. unused?), removed from estim_params_ or renamed to enforce name uniqueness?
Best regards
George
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
I have just done it
Best
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
Thanks Michel
Can param_names then be removed from the estim_params_ structure in Dynare (pre-processor) too (or renamed to a unique name) to avoid possible confusion?
Best regards George ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr To: "List for Dynare developers" dev@dynare.org Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [DynareDev] C++ DsgeLikelihood and Dynare Parameters
You are right. As far as I can see estim_params_.param_names and estim_params_.user_param_names are initialized as empty matrix by the preprocessor but not used anywhere. You can safely ignore them
Best
Michel
G. Perendia wrote:
See my comments below Best regards George
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Juillard" michel.juillard@ens.fr
Ho George Why don't you keep estim_params_ as an intermediary structure that you add to your main structrure ?
I do not quite understand the notion of "intermediary structure that you add to your main structrure" and, so far, I am afraid that could
complicate
the issue greatly since estim_params is a stand-alone (i.e. not part of another structure such as dr1 is part of oo_).
If I create separate structure for estim_params we are going back to
many
structures situation.
E.g. dr1 is special case, handled as a separate "sub-structure" variable extracted from the main structure as its single field, (initially taken
form
oo_).
In general, I think that it is not good to start making exceptions to
policy
agreed after long discussion aimed to achieve the single params
structure
and here have one single parameter field which is causing problem which
also
appear unused - it is left empty and there appear to be no references to
the
estim_params_.param_names in Dynare matlab code!
Best
Michel Juillard
On Nov 4, 2009, at 17:02, "G. Perendia"
<george@perendia.orangehome.co.uk
wrote:
Hi
I am having problem creating single parameters structure for DsgeLikelihood as some names are not unique.
I. e. I only encountered a problem with "param_names" field which exists in both, M_ and estim_params_ though it does not seem to be populated and used in the latter - can it be ignored (i.e. unused?), removed from estim_params_ or renamed to enforce name uniqueness?
Best regards
George
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
Dev mailing list Dev@dynare.org http://www.dynare.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
-
G. Perendia -
Michel Juillard -
Sébastien Villemot