|
You should not have removed you original message.
Your solution is worthless without knowing what the original problem was.
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
Does the C++ standard say anything about which side of the assignment operator is executed first? For example,
int j[1];
int i = 0;
j[i++] = i; Will j[0] be 0 or 1 after this block of code executes? Is this per the C++ standard, or is the result of this code compiler-dependent? In general, what rules govern the order of code execution like this? Is it operator associativity (assignment is right-to-left associative, so j[0] = 0), or operator precedence (post-increment and operator[] both have higher precedence than assignment, so j[0] = 1)? Thanks,
Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
You get j[0] = 0; the postfix increment is meant as "use before increment" and it produce the same result than the statements below:
j[i] = i;
i = i + 1;
You can try the following:
int j[1];
int i = 0;
j[i] = j++;
This again will produce j[0] = 0.
The answer to your question is: the increment is applied after the whole statement has been processed, like as you wrote the same statement without the postfix increment (i.e. j[i] = i) and then another statement with only the increment (i.e. i = i + 1).
|
|
|
|
|
I assume you meant to use "i++" on the third line of your second example, but understand what you meant. I really thought that the statements:
int i = 1;
int j = (i) + ++i; would be equivalent to "int j = 3;", but no matter how I apply the parentheses, it always comes out as 4, just as your response predicts it would. Thanks,
Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
This would be;
int i = 1;
i = i + 1;
int j = i + i;
|
|
|
|
|
IMO that is irrelevant as you should not even consider writing code like that. The only things you can achieve here is confuse yourself, confuse all future readers, and make debugging tougher than necessary.
If it is
j[i]=i;
i++;
you want, then write exactly that. It makes perfectly clear what is going on, and, at least in an Intel-Windows environment, it does not have any influence on code size or performance.
|
|
|
|
|
Well actually, I am trying to write something like the following where I am copying from a 0-indexed array to a 1-indexed array:
const int src[] = {0, 1};
const size_t srcLen = sizeof(src) / sizeof(int);
int *const dst = new int[srcLen] - 1;
for (size_t i = 0; i < srcLen; ++i)
dst[i + 1] = src[i];NOTE: I have simplified the array copy in the above example... I am actually using an external API function to get the value of the src array elements, which is why I am not just using the statement "const int* const dst = &src[0] - 1;".
The compiler will probably optimize this by keeping the value of i + 1 from the array assignment for the next loop iteration in a register (as opposed to recomputing it), but if I could write the for-loop as:
for (size_t i = 0; i < srcLen; )
dst[++i] = src[i];This would *almost* guarantee that i is incremented only once. Given the initial response, I can't have a single statement with two different values for i, so I'm not able to do what I wanted anyway. It would probably have a higher probability of being optimized if I wrote the loop as:
for (size_t i = 0; i < srcLen; ) {
const int temp = src[i];
dst[++i] = temp;
}Almost every compiler available would put temp in a register instead of allocating it on the stack, but I really don't want to write the loop like that. Guess I'll keep my fingers crossed that the compiler optimizes it! (I don't really care timing-wise as the loop is only iterating over a couple hundred thousand elements one time per run, which is an insignificant amount of time as a fraction of the program's run-time, but why not write efficient code when you can?)
Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
OK, now I'll try and answer as good as I can, from memory:
1. in C the statement dst[i++]=i; is undefined, i.e. the exact order of the operation is not specified by the language specification. A compiler might first evaluate the RHS expression, then start working on the LHS; or it could first reduce the LHS to a simple target address, then evaluate the RHS, then assign. A compiler would even be allowed to unroll the loop (say by a factor of 2) and treat both halves differently. I don't think you'd like that.
2. in C++ things are slightly better, and AFAICR the spec got more stringent over time; the compiler builder still has options but is urged to document the choices he made; I have actually seen compiler vendors do it. So for a specific compiler, you might officially get away with such code. You still would not pass my code review though, my style guide would stop you in time. 
Skippums wrote: why not write efficient code when you can?
I agree to some extent. When two styles are possible: if readability is the same, I'll opt for the higher performance variant. If a trade-of is to be made, I'll judge case by case. And if performance is all and everything, I'll put the normal code as a comment and write whatever it takes.
But you have me puzzled even more by your base-0 and base-1 indexing. Can't you just make it all consistent (and I do mean base-0) throughout your app and get rid of the problem entirely?
|
|
|
|
|
I have two arrays being sent to my function from an outside source. The first array is a list of 1-based indices into the the second array that contains the data. When the first array has an index of 0, this means that there is no associated data element in the second array. So, for example:
const size_t indexArray[] = {1, 0, 3, 2, 0};
DATA_TYPE *const dataArray = new DATA_TYPE[3] - 1; Now, as I said, no matter what I do I have to read in the values of dataArray using API calls on a per-element basis. I could very easily copy the values from indexArray into another variable in my C-code, subtracting 1 from each element as I perform the copy. However, I think it is more straightforward (and more efficient) to just get a pointer to the existing indexArray data (using an API call) and subtract one from my dynamically allocated dataArray object as I illustrated in the above code. Using this approach, I can compare each element from indexArray to 0 to test for the special condition, whereas if I did a copy and subtracted one I would have to test against numeric_limits<size_t>::max(), and pray that the max() macro from windows.h wasn't included by some other header file that I am including. I may also need to make the copy loop more complex, if I don't want to assume that the result of (0u - 1u) is the maximum unsigned integer.
Hopefully that explains in better detail why I am not just converting it to 0-based indices.
Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, my mind is completely boggled by this code...
- you allocate an intrinsic array of size whatever
- you decrement the pointer to the array
- you then manually copy another array into this one starting at the same position you allocated the memory at
What's wrong with...
int *src_start = ...
int *src_end = ...
int *p = new int[ src_end - src_start ];
std::copy( src_start, src_end, p );
int *p_to_1_based_alias = p - 1;
If that doesn't at least perform as well as your handrolled loop then trade your compiler in for a new one. You can also get rid of any explicit memory management using a vector.
Another idea would be to just front end the array you get back from the API and convert the index:
template<std::size_t N, typename T>
class N_based_array
{
public:
N_based_array( T *data ) : data_( data ) {}
T &operator[]( std::size_t index )
{
return data_[ index - N ];
}
private:
T *data_;
};
Cheers,
Ash
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get a list of the type I want back from the API function call... I have to call each API method on a per-element basis. Basically, I have a cell-array from Matlab being passed in:
size_t const indexCount = mxGetNumberOfElements(prhs[0]);
size_t const dataSize = mxGetNumberOfElements(prhs[1]);
double const ** data = new double const *[dataSize];
unsigned __int32 const *const indices = static_cast<unsigned __int32 const *>(mxGetData(prhs[0]));
for (size_t i = 0; i < dataSize; ++i) {
data[i] = mxGetPr(mxGetCell(prhs[1], i));
}
--data; That is why I didn't do what you suggested.
Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
So what's wrong with the wrapping class solution to convert your array to a 1 based one?
Seeing your code there you could use std::generate on a std::vector to get the same effect as your manual loop. Generally if you're doing low level memory fiddling, pointer arithmetic and looping at the same time in C++ there's usually a simpler way.
Cheers,
Ash
|
|
|
|
|
Skippums wrote: int *const dst = new int[srcLen] - 1;
This is seriously broken. You are allocating a pointer and then decrementing it. This is VERY bad (especially since you declare dst const and now can't delete it.) If you want to use 1 indexing, simply allocate one extra element and don't worry about element zero.
Skippums wrote: for (size_t i = 0; i < srcLen; )
dst[++i] = src[i];
The behavior here is technically undefined, however with VS 2008 it will increment i, then use the result as the index for both arrays.
Skippums wrote: const int temp = src[i];
The "const" here does nothing and ends up being slower, not just because you are confusing the compiler, but because it prevents the compiler from using an indexed assembly call.
Skippums wrote: (I don't really care timing-wise as the loop is only iterating over a couple hundred thousand elements one time per run, which is an insignificant amount of time as a fraction of the program's run-time, but why not write efficient code when you can?)
Because memcpy() will very likely be faster in this case and you aren't concentrating on where the optimizations will actually do some good. Assuming you have a sound algorithm, a general rule is writing sensible, plain C/C++ code will allow the compiler to do the best job optimizing (I've proven this many times to skeptics.)
* * * * *
Note: Out of curiosity, I benchmarked the various algorithms using just an int array of 10,000 and 100,000 elements.
void Test1()
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < len; ++i)
pDst[i + 1] = pSrc[i];
}
void Test2()
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < len; )
{
const int temp = pSrc[i];
pDst[++i] = temp;
}
}
void Test3()
{
memcpy(&pDst[1], pSrc, len * sizeof(int));
}
void Test4()
{
int *src_start = (int*) &pSrc[0];
int *src_end = (int*) &pSrc[len];
std::copy(src_start, src_end, &pDst[1]);
}
These are very artificial tests, but as expected Test3 & Test 4 were fastest by about 15%. Test4 was often slightly faster by a few cycles than Test3. I scratched my head since both end up at memcpy(), but Test4 has more apparent overhead. But then I realized it was the len * sizeof(int) calculation that slightly slows Test3().
Surprisingly, Test2 was ever so slightly faster than Test1 (by about 0.1% - 0.5% on my system.) I suspect the CPU cache covers the "save" of the register.
modified on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 2:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Good points.
Joe Woodbury wrote: const int temp = src[i];
The "const" here does nothing and ends up being slower, not just because you are confusing the compiler, but because it prevents the compiler from using an indexed assembly call.
Care to elaborate on this a bit? Why would the const affect the compiler? I would assume the compiler easier could chose an indexed call just because there is a const.
|
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < srcLen; ++i)
dst[i + 1] = src[i];
for (size_t i = 0; i < srcLen; )
{
const int temp = src[i];
dst[++i] = temp;
}
Sorry, I was typing fast and was rather confusing. I should have said that the second doesn't take advantage of the indexing assembly can do. In assembly both calls use something like mov DWORD PTR [ecx+eax*4], edx, the first, however, "sees" the add by one and simply makes the final copy mov DWORD PTR [eax+edx*4+4], ecx the instruction is one extra byte.
Now you could write the function as follows, however, my experience is that it will end up running slower. Partly because the compiler may not make pDst and pSrc register variables (due to not enough room) and partly because of the above.
int* pDst = &dst[1];
int* pSrc = &src[0];
for (size_t i = 0; i < srcLen; ++i)
*pDst++ = *pSrc++;
[Note: Turns out that in an admittedly isolated environment, the second algorithm and third algorithms are slightly faster than the first, which surprised me, but that's the voodoo of assembly and modern CPUs. memcpy() is a solid 15% faster. Of course, memcpy is likely using SSE2 instructions which makes it even faster than rep movsd.
modified on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 2:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense if it depends on the indexing rather than the const keyword.
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: This is seriously broken. You are allocating a pointer and then decrementing it. This is VERY bad (especially since you declare dst const and now can't delete it.) If you want to use 1 indexing, simply allocate one extra element and don't worry about element zero.
Actually you can delete it:
delete[] (dst + 1);
Joe Woodbury wrote: The behavior here is technically undefined, however with VS 2008 it will increment i, then use the result as the index for both arrays.
That was my original question... Thank you for answering it! Even if it would have done what I wanted, I still probably wouldn't have used it due to code maintainability issues.
Joe Woodbury wrote: The "const" here does nothing
Actually, the const there prevents people in the future from modifying the value stored in temp, which may prevent coder error. In the simple loop I proposed, it probably will have no effect either way, since screwing up the loop through human error is unlikely and I'm guessing VS2008 is smart enough not to allocate memory for it. Also, the actual loop I am using is more complex than this example, so the compiler couldn't have used an indexed assembly call anyway.
Joe Woodbury wrote: Because memcpy() will very likely be faster in this case
I can't use memcpy... that is part of the complexity of my problem. See my response to the post immediately before yours if you are curious as to why I can't use that function.
I do fully agree with your statement:
Joe Woodbury wrote: Assuming you have a sound algorithm, a general rule is writing sensible, plain C/C++ code
Thanks for the help!
Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Skippums wrote: I'm guessing VS2008 is smart enough not to allocate memory for it
It actual does since it runs out of registers (I was a little surprised by this, but it makes sense once you look at the dissassembled code.) In practice, though, I'd imagine the cache would prevent this from being a big performance hit.
|
|
|
|
|
One question: Have you measured how much faster those a-priori optimizations are running compared to the very cleanly coded algorithm from the post above (using std::copy)?
|
|
|
|
|
Repeating my edit above:
Out of curiosity, I benchmarked the various algorithms using just an int array of 10,000 and 100,000 elements.
void Test1()
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < len; ++i)
pDst[i + 1] = pSrc[i];
}
void Test2()
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < len; )
{
const int temp = pSrc[i];
pDst[++i] = temp;
}
}
void Test3()
{
memcpy(&pDst[1], pSrc, len * sizeof(int));
}
void Test4()
{
int *src_start = (int*) &pSrc[0];
int *src_end = (int*) &pSrc[len];
std::copy(src_start, src_end, &pDst[1]);
}
These are very artificial tests, but as expected Test3 & Test 4 were fastest by about 15%. Test4 was often slightly faster by a few cycles than Test3. I scratched my head since both end up at memcpy(), but Test4 has more apparent overhead. But then I realized it was the len * sizeof(int) calculation that slightly slows Test3().
Surprisingly, Test2 was ever so slightly faster than Test1 (by about 0.1% - 0.5% on my system.) I suspect the CPU cache covers the "save" of the register.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the insight. A nice lesson for the "early optimizers"...
|
|
|
|
|
If your intent is accessing two arrays within a loop, then - no matter the relation between indices - the fastest way would be to use two pointers to the individual elements and increment these.
If you're so intent on improving performance, consider this: every direct access to an array element via an index value requires
1. loading the start address of the array
2. get the size of an element
3. multiplying that by the index(-1)
4. adding that to the start address
5. dereference this address to get to the actual element.
As opposed to using pointers which just requires
1. load the pointer
2. dereference it
Of course, incrementing the pointers eats up most of this advantage, as you have to add the element size each iteration. And most likely a good optimizer will convert your code into something like this anyway.
What I want to say, using an index is just complicating things unneccesarily if all you want to do is access each element sequentially.
|
|
|
|
|
"why not write efficient code when you can?" 
Don't be daft. Write readable code when you can. Optimize when necessary and use a profiler to detect inefficencies.
|
|
|
|
|
Why use a performance profiler when I can just guess which parts will be inefficient during implementation? And for the record, my code is readable; the compiler understands it just fine. 
Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Skippums wrote: Why use a performance profiler when I can just guess which parts will be inefficient
Unless you're writing Hello World, you will be surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
