[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
AW: st: Mata version control |

Date |
Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:33:36 +0100 |

<> For future reference, this should definitely be turned into an FAQ on http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/mata/... HTH Martin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von William Gould, StataCorp LP Gesendet: Montag, 16. Februar 2009 17:20 An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Betreff: Re: st: Mata version control > I am trying to compile and save a Mata function as a .mo file. I am > using Stata 10.1 but would like to compile and save the .mo file as a > Stata 9.2 file. My understanding is that this should be possible under > version control but I'm not succeeding. As has already been noted on the list, setting version to 9.2, compiling a Mata function, and saving it, will not produce an executable version that will run under Stata 9.2. Partha later asked, "Dare I call this a bug?", to which I answer, "No, it is a feature." I will explain. Version control is more complicated in a compiled language such as Mata than in an interpreted language such as Stata's ado. In Stata's ado langauge, one number (the version) is sufficient to encode all that needs to be known. In a compiled language such as Mata, than one number turns into 3, or even 4: 1. Version of the Stata. This is the version we are all familiar with. This number specfies how Stata works. In Mata, this number specifies how Stata will work when Mata uses Stata, just as it does when you use Stata directly. 2. Version of Mata's source language. This number records the version of Mata's source language that the compiler understands and, correspondingly, the version of the pre-compiled Mata libraries that the compiler assumes will be used when the compiled code is run. (2) is logically independent of (1), but because of the way we do things at StataCorp, you can think of (2) as being equal to (1), although that is an over simplification. What is litterally true is that (2) <= (1). The way we work at StataCorp, if we need a new (2), we increment (1) and set (2) = (1). On the other hand, if a change affects Stata but not Mata, we increment (1) but leave (2) unchanged. 3. Version of the object-code language. This number identifies how the Mata's object language works. Mata's compiler takes what you code -- called source code -- and compiles it into object code. Sometimes, as new features are added, or as Mata is made more efficient, new opcodes are added to the object language, and the compiler uses those new opcodes. This number is not settable and is not a number you ever see. It is not settable, not even at StataCorp. This number simply identifies how the compiler works. 4. Inside files such as .mo files, there is yet another version number that reflects how the objects files are written. Over time, new concepts might be added. The file format is made richer (more complicated) in order to record these new objects, and older Stata's wouldn't know what to make of them. This number, like (3), is also not settable. (4) reflects how the file was written. Newer Statas know how to read older file formats, but older Statas know nothing about new formats. (4) is an issue we with which we are all familiar. Many of us have run into instances of (4) in the generic sense, for example when attempting to read a Stata 10 dataset using Stata 4. Stata 10 can read Stata 4 datasets, but not the other way around. The same issues apply to .mo files. (4), by itself, is reason enough why a modern Stata cannot be used to compile object code for an old Stata. That is, it is reason enough assuming the file format has changed. At StataCorp, however, we do not change the file format willy nilly. Nonetheless, (4) does sometimes change. What I want to empahsize, however, is (3). (3) is unique to compiled languges. When you think about Stata's ordinary version number, it should not surprise you that -some string- might mean one thing to Stata 4 and another to Stata 10. That is, after all, the problem Stata's version number is designed to solve. In Mata, that issue is handled by (2). In Mata, however, there is another issue. Mata is a compiler. You code -some string- and Mata turns that into "5a0000111a2e701". Just as (2) handles the interpretation of -some string-, (3) handles the interpretation of "5a0000111a2e701". "5a0000111a2e701" might mean on thing to an older Stata and something else to a newer Stata. More likely, "5a0000111a2e701" means nothing an an older Stata and would cause the older Mata+Stata to crash if it were encountered. Some of you are doubtlessly thinking, "Well, arrange so that the Mata compiler doesn't translate -some string- to "5a0000111a2e701" when I set the version number back. I have two responses: you wouldn't like it if we could, and we can't. You wouldn't like it because then older code would not experience speedup improvements that have been made to Mata unless you changed the version number, and then you would have to worry about source-code incompatibilities. Right now, all you have to do to get the speed improvements made to Mata is recompile, and you can be certain that your more efficient code will work if the old code worked. Some of you may be thinking of some ways around that problem, but don't bother, because there's another brick wall in front of you. Mata is an optimizing compiler. With optimization on, it is virtually impossible to prevent "5a0000111a2e701" from showing up due to some recurssive substitution rule. I say virtually because I can think of some ways one could try, but one could never prove they work. The only way to know that "5a0000111a2e701" did not show up would be to turn optimization off, and at that point, while it is true that Mata runs faster than ado, it does not run that much faster. I should add that, even if you were willing to put with all of the above -- which you would not -- maintaining multiple versions of the compiler and certifying that each works when code is compiled using a modern Mata and executed using an older Mata would be a monumental task. It would be such a monumental task that we dco not even attempt it with the simpler ado language. From a computer-science point of view, version control in Stata is about forward compatiblity, not backwrds. Old code runs correctly on modern Statas. The same applies for Mata. You do not even have to recompile. Using a modern Stata to develop code for older Statas, even in ado, will always be problematic. -- Bill wgould@stata.com * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**Re: st: Mata version control***From:*wgould@stata.com (William Gould, StataCorp LP)

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Mata version control** - Next by Date:
**st: AW: double hurlde models?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Mata version control** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Mata version control** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |