(no title)
btdmaster | 23 days ago
Usually abstraction like this means that the compiler has to emit generic code which is then harder to flow through constraints and emit the same final assembly since it's less similar to the "canonical" version of the code that wouldn't use a magic `==` (in this case) or std::vector methods or something else like that.
maccard|19 days ago
cogman10|19 days ago
This was my function
clang emits basically the same thing yours does. But gcc ends up just really struggling to vectorize for large numbers of array.Here's gcc for 42 elements:
https://godbolt.org/z/sjz7xd8Gs
and here's clang for 42 elements:
https://godbolt.org/z/frvbhrnEK
Very bizarre. Clang pretty readily sees that it can use SIMD instructions and really optimizes this while GCC really struggles to want to use it. I've even seen strange output where GCC will emit SIMD instructions for the first loop and then falls back on regular x86 compares for the rest.
Edit: Actually, it looks like for large enough array sizes, it flips. At 256 elements, gcc ends up emitting simd instructions while clang does pure x86. So strange.
btdmaster|19 days ago
pjmlp|23 days ago
Abstractions are welcome when it doesn't matter, when it matters there are other ways to write the code and it keeps being C++ compliant.