digitalmars.D - Performance of map!()
- Chris (47/47) Apr 24 2015 I replaced a range that was similar to map with map and the
- John Colvin (2/49) Apr 24 2015 Compiler? Compiler flags?
- Chris (3/63) Apr 24 2015 dmd v2.067.0
- "Casper =?UTF-8?B?RsOmcmdlbWFuZCI=?= <shorttail hotmail.com> (1/3) Apr 24 2015 Does a benchmark of dmd generated code really matter?
- Chris (2/6) Apr 24 2015 At least for dmd.
- "Casper =?UTF-8?B?RsOmcmdlbWFuZCI=?= <shorttail hotmail.com> (7/15) Apr 24 2015 dmd is good at making machine code fast, not making fast machine
- John Colvin (5/52) Apr 24 2015 That is pretty much identical to the implementation of map, see
- Chris (3/66) Apr 24 2015 The source range is a string[][].
- "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm gmx.net> (3/7) Apr 24 2015 I suspect the cause is the current inability to inline across
I replaced a range that was similar to map with map and the
performance dropped by ~0.5 msec.
The range I used previously is based on Adam's D Cookbook. It is
consistently faster than map.
private struct Transformer(alias agent, R) if (isInputRange!R) {
private R r;
this (R r) {
this.r = r;
}
static if (isInfinite!R) {
enum bool empty = false;
}
else {
property bool empty() {
return r.empty;
}
}
void popFront() {
r.popFront();
}
property ref auto front() {
return agent(r.front);
}
static if (isForwardRange!R) {
property auto save() {
return Transformer!(agent, R)(r.save);
}
}
static if (isBidirectionalRange!R) {
property auto back() {
return agent(r.back);
}
void popBack() {
r.popBack();
}
}
static if (isRandomAccessRange!R) {
auto opIndex(size_t i) {
return agent(r[i]);
}
}
static if (hasLength!R) {
property auto length() {
return r.length;
}
}
}
Apr 24 2015
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 10:22:05 UTC, Chris wrote:
I replaced a range that was similar to map with map and the
performance dropped by ~0.5 msec.
The range I used previously is based on Adam's D Cookbook. It
is consistently faster than map.
private struct Transformer(alias agent, R) if (isInputRange!R) {
private R r;
this (R r) {
this.r = r;
}
static if (isInfinite!R) {
enum bool empty = false;
}
else {
property bool empty() {
return r.empty;
}
}
void popFront() {
r.popFront();
}
property ref auto front() {
return agent(r.front);
}
static if (isForwardRange!R) {
property auto save() {
return Transformer!(agent, R)(r.save);
}
}
static if (isBidirectionalRange!R) {
property auto back() {
return agent(r.back);
}
void popBack() {
r.popBack();
}
}
static if (isRandomAccessRange!R) {
auto opIndex(size_t i) {
return agent(r[i]);
}
}
static if (hasLength!R) {
property auto length() {
return r.length;
}
}
}
Compiler? Compiler flags?
Apr 24 2015
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 10:53:04 UTC, John Colvin wrote:On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 10:22:05 UTC, Chris wrote:dmd v2.067.0 dub --build=release (-release -inline -O -boundscheck=off)I replaced a range that was similar to map with map and the performance dropped by ~0.5 msec. The range I used previously is based on Adam's D Cookbook. It is consistently faster than map. private struct Transformer(alias agent, R) if (isInputRange!R) { private R r; this (R r) { this.r = r; } static if (isInfinite!R) { enum bool empty = false; } else { property bool empty() { return r.empty; } } void popFront() { r.popFront(); } property ref auto front() { return agent(r.front); } static if (isForwardRange!R) { property auto save() { return Transformer!(agent, R)(r.save); } } static if (isBidirectionalRange!R) { property auto back() { return agent(r.back); } void popBack() { r.popBack(); } } static if (isRandomAccessRange!R) { auto opIndex(size_t i) { return agent(r[i]); } } static if (hasLength!R) { property auto length() { return r.length; } } }Compiler? Compiler flags?
Apr 24 2015
dmd v2.067.0 dub --build=release (-release -inline -O -boundscheck=off)Does a benchmark of dmd generated code really matter?
Apr 24 2015
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 11:38:46 UTC, Casper Færgemand wrote:At least for dmd.dmd v2.067.0 dub --build=release (-release -inline -O -boundscheck=off)Does a benchmark of dmd generated code really matter?
Apr 24 2015
"Casper =?UTF-8?B?RsOmcmdlbWFuZCI=?= <shorttail hotmail.com> On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 11:49:24 UTC, Chris wrote:On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 11:38:46 UTC, Casper Færgemand wrote:dmd is good at making machine code fast, not making fast machine code. It's not that I mind effort is put into dmd, it's just that if the code change doesn't improve the output of gdc and ldc, then code compiled with their better optimizers won't ever feel the change. Can you post the full benchmark?At least for dmd.dmd v2.067.0 dub --build=release (-release -inline -O -boundscheck=off)Does a benchmark of dmd generated code really matter?
Apr 24 2015
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 10:22:05 UTC, Chris wrote:
I replaced a range that was similar to map with map and the
performance dropped by ~0.5 msec.
The range I used previously is based on Adam's D Cookbook. It
is consistently faster than map.
private struct Transformer(alias agent, R) if (isInputRange!R) {
private R r;
this (R r) {
this.r = r;
}
static if (isInfinite!R) {
enum bool empty = false;
}
else {
property bool empty() {
return r.empty;
}
}
void popFront() {
r.popFront();
}
property ref auto front() {
return agent(r.front);
}
static if (isForwardRange!R) {
property auto save() {
return Transformer!(agent, R)(r.save);
}
}
static if (isBidirectionalRange!R) {
property auto back() {
return agent(r.back);
}
void popBack() {
r.popBack();
}
}
static if (isRandomAccessRange!R) {
auto opIndex(size_t i) {
return agent(r[i]);
}
}
static if (hasLength!R) {
property auto length() {
return r.length;
}
}
}
That is pretty much identical to the implementation of map, see
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/std/algorithm/iteration.d#L504
The only difference is that you don't implement opSlice. Perhaps
slicing is particularly slow for your source range?
Apr 24 2015
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 11:33:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 10:22:05 UTC, Chris wrote:Yeah, I saw that.I replaced a range that was similar to map with map and the performance dropped by ~0.5 msec. The range I used previously is based on Adam's D Cookbook. It is consistently faster than map. private struct Transformer(alias agent, R) if (isInputRange!R) { private R r; this (R r) { this.r = r; } static if (isInfinite!R) { enum bool empty = false; } else { property bool empty() { return r.empty; } } void popFront() { r.popFront(); } property ref auto front() { return agent(r.front); } static if (isForwardRange!R) { property auto save() { return Transformer!(agent, R)(r.save); } } static if (isBidirectionalRange!R) { property auto back() { return agent(r.back); } void popBack() { r.popBack(); } } static if (isRandomAccessRange!R) { auto opIndex(size_t i) { return agent(r[i]); } } static if (hasLength!R) { property auto length() { return r.length; } } }That is pretty much identical to the implementation of map, see https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/std/algorithm/iteration.d#L504The only difference is that you don't implement opSlice. Perhaps slicing is particularly slow for your source range?The source range is a string[][].
Apr 24 2015
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 11:33:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:That is pretty much identical to the implementation of map, see https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/std/algorithm/iteration.d#L504 The only difference is that you don't implement opSlice. Perhaps slicing is particularly slow for your source range?I suspect the cause is the current inability to inline across modules.
Apr 24 2015