Thanks, I wonder if it is currently impossible to make it as fast as the
nested for loops, ie that some optimizer improvement could fix it.
Here's a stripped down version of my code:
import QuartzCore // This is just for timing using CACurrentMediaTime()
struct Point2DInt {
var x: Int
var y: Int
}
struct Size2DInt {
var width: Int
var height: Int
var rect: Rect2DInt { return Rect2DInt(x: 0, y: 0, width: width,
height: height) }
}
struct Rect2DInt : Sequence {
var description: String { return "(\(origin), \(size))" }
var origin: Point2DInt
var size: Size2DInt
var minX: Int {
get { return origin.x }
set { size.width = maxX - newValue; origin.x = newValue }
}
var maxX: Int {
get { return origin.x + size.width }
set { size.width = newValue - minX }
}
var minY: Int {
get { return origin.y }
set { size.height = maxY - newValue; origin.y = newValue }
}
var maxY: Int {
get { return origin.y + size.height }
set { size.height = newValue - minY }
}
init(origin: Point2DInt, size: Size2DInt) {
self.origin = origin
self.size = size
}
init(x: Int, y: Int, width: Int, height: Int) {
self.init(origin: Point2DInt(x: x, y: y), size: Size2DInt(width:
width, height: height))
}
init(minX: Int, minY: Int, maxX: Int, maxY: Int) {
self.init(origin: Point2DInt(x: minX, y: minY),
size: Size2DInt(width: maxX - minX, height: maxY - minY))
}
func makeIterator() -> Rect2DIntPointIterator {
return Rect2DIntPointIterator(rect: self)
}
}
// This is the crucial type here, this version is the fastest that
// I could find, but it's still slower than two nested for loops,
// see test below.
struct Rect2DIntPointIterator : IteratorProtocol, Sequence {
let startX, startY, stopX, stopY: Int
var currentPoint: Point2DInt
init(rect: Rect2DInt) {
currentPoint = rect.origin
startX = rect.origin.x
startY = rect.origin.y
stopX = rect.maxX
stopY = rect.maxY
}
mutating func next() -> Point2DInt? {
defer { currentPoint.x = currentPoint.x &+ 1 }
if currentPoint.x == stopX {
currentPoint.x = startX
currentPoint.y = currentPoint.y &+ 1
if currentPoint.y == stopY { return nil }
}
return currentPoint
}
}
struct Table2D<Element> {
let size: Size2DInt
var storage: [Element]
init(size: Size2DInt, filledWith element: Element) {
precondition(size.width > 0 && size.height > 0)
self.size = size
self.storage = [Element](repeating: element, count: size.width *
size.height)
}
subscript(x: Int, y: Int) -> Element {
get {
precondition(x >= 0 && y >= 0 && x < size.width && y <
size.height)
return storage[x + y * size.width]
}
set {
precondition(x >= 0 && y >= 0 && x < size.width && y <
size.height)
storage[x + y * size.width] = newValue
}
}
subscript(position: Point2DInt) -> Element {
get { return self[position.x, position.y] }
set { self[position.x, position.y] = newValue }
}
}
func randomDouble() -> Double {
// Returns a random Double in the range [0, 1)
let ui64 = (UInt64(arc4random()) << 32) | UInt64(arc4random())
return Double(ui64 >> UInt64(63 - Double.significandBitCount)) *
.ulpOfOne/2
}
func randomInt(from: Int, to: Int) -> Int {
// Returns an Int in the range [from, to)
return Int(Double(from) + (randomDouble() * Double(to -
from)).rounded(.down))
}
func randomSubrects(of rect: Rect2DInt, minSize: Size2DInt, count: Int) ->
[Rect2DInt] {
precondition(count > 0 && minSize.width > 0 && minSize.height > 0)
var subrects = [Rect2DInt]()
subrects.reserveCapacity(count)
for _ in 0 ..< count {
let size = Size2DInt(width: randomInt(from: minSize.width, to:
rect.size.width),
height: randomInt(from: minSize.height, to:
rect.size.height))
let origin = Point2DInt(x: randomInt(from: 0, to: rect.size.width
- size.width),
y: randomInt(from: 0, to: rect.size.height
- size.height))
subrects.append(Rect2DInt(origin: origin, size: size))
}
return subrects
}
func randomTable(size: Size2DInt) -> Table2D<Double> {
var table = Table2D(size: size, filledWith: 0.0)
for p in table.size.rect { table[p] = randomDouble() }
return table
}
func sum1(areas: [Rect2DInt], of table: Table2D<Double>) -> Double {
var sum = 0.0
for r in areas {
// Using custom iterator:
for p in r { sum += table[p] }
}
return sum
}
func sum2(areas: [Rect2DInt], of table: Table2D<Double>) -> Double {
var sum = 0.0
for r in areas {
// Using two nested for loops:
for y in r.minY ..< r.maxY {
for x in r.minX ..< r.maxX {
sum = sum + table[x, y]
}
}
}
return sum
}
func test(
sumFn: ([Rect2DInt], Table2D<Double>) -> Double,
label: String,
table: Table2D<Double>,
areas: [Rect2DInt]
)
{
let t0 = CACurrentMediaTime()
let sum = sumFn(areas, table)
let t1 = CACurrentMediaTime()
print(label, t1 - t0, "seconds (sum \(sum))")
}
for _ in 0 ..< 4 {
let rndTable = randomTable(size: Size2DInt(width: 1000, height: 1000))
let rndTableAreas = randomSubrects(of: rndTable.size.rect,
minSize: Size2DInt(width: 100,
height: 100),
count: 1000)
test(sumFn: sum1, label: "sum1 - using custom iterator ", table:
rndTable, areas: rndTableAreas)
test(sumFn: sum2, label: "sum2 - using nested for-loops ", table:
rndTable, areas: rndTableAreas)
print()
}
//
// Typical output on my MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013):
//
// sum1 - using custom iterator 0.480134483019356 seconds (sum
153408603.850653)
// sum2 - using nested for-loops 0.348341046017595 seconds (sum
153408603.850653)
//
// sum1 - using custom iterator 0.426998238021042 seconds (sum
149851816.622638)
// sum2 - using nested for-loops 0.34111139801098 seconds (sum
149851816.622638)
//
// sum1 - using custom iterator 0.466021075990284 seconds (sum
155267702.297466)
// sum2 - using nested for-loops 0.351970263000112 seconds (sum
155267702.297466)
//
// sum1 - using custom iterator 0.426723245007452 seconds (sum
146331850.202214)
// sum2 - using nested for-loops 0.340267747989856 seconds (sum
146331850.202214)
//
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Karl <razielim@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmmm that’s interesting. A brief test I ran:
import CoreGraphics
import Foundation
struct PointIterator {
let rect: CGRect
var nextPoint: CGPoint
let maxX: CGFloat
let maxY: CGFloat
init(rect: CGRect) {
self.rect = rect.standardized
self.nextPoint = self.rect.origin
// Cache for fast iteration
self.maxX = self.rect.maxX
self.maxY = self.rect.maxY
}
mutating func next() -> CGPoint? {
guard nextPoint.x <= maxX, nextPoint.y <= maxY else {
return .none
}
defer {
nextPoint.x += 1
if nextPoint.x > maxX {
nextPoint.x = rect.origin.x
nextPoint.y += 1
}
}
return nextPoint
}
}
// Use iterator
func iteratePoints_it(_ rect: CGRect, with: (CGPoint)->()) {
var it = PointIterator(rect: rect)
while let point = it.next() {
with(point)
}
}
// Basic unwrapping of the iterator as a function (no ‘defer’)
func iteratePoints_fe(_ rect: CGRect, with: (CGPoint)->()) {
let rect = rect.standardized
var nextPoint = rect.origin
let maxX = rect.maxX
let maxY = rect.maxY
while true {
guard nextPoint.x <= maxX, nextPoint.y <= maxY else {
return
}
with(nextPoint)
nextPoint.x += 1
if nextPoint.x > maxX {
nextPoint.x = rect.origin.x
nextPoint.y += 1
}
}
}
// for..in loop
func iteratePoints_fe2(_ rect: CGRect, with: (CGPoint)->()) {
let rect = rect.standardized
let maxX = rect.maxX
let maxY = rect.maxY
for y in stride(from: rect.origin.y, to: maxY, by: 1) {
for x in stride(from: rect.origin.x, to: maxX, by: 1) {
with(CGPoint(x: x, y: y))
}
}
}
func profile(_ iterations: Int, _ thing: ()->()) -> TimeInterval {
var totalTime: TimeInterval = 0
for _ in 0..<iterations {
let start = Date().timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate
thing()
totalTime += (Date().timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate - start)
}
return totalTime/TimeInterval(iterations)
}
let bigRect = CGRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 10_000, height: 10_000)
let iterator = profile(10) { iteratePoints_it(bigRect) { if $0.x >
1_000_000 { print("?") } } } // always false, won't be optimised out.
let foreach = profile(10) { iteratePoints_fe(bigRect) { if $0.x >
1_000_000 { print("?") } } }
let foreach2 = profile(10) { iteratePoints_fe2(bigRect) { if $0.x >
1_000_000 { print("?") } } }
print("iterator: \(iterator) \nforeach: \(foreach) \nforeach2:
\(foreach2)")
Results:
iterator: 0.316907703876495
foreach: 0.283202117681503
foreach2: 0.568318998813629
That ranking is consistent, too. Using an iterator does appear marginally
slower than a basic unwrapping of the iterator in to a function.
On 4 Jan 2017, at 09:56, Jens Persson via swift-users < >> swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on some low-level pixel processing code (stuff that is not
possible to do using standard API or on eg GPU), and I had lots of eg these:
for y in someStartY ..< someStopY {
for x in someStartX ..< someStopX {
... pixels[x, y] ...
}
}
So I implemented some (value) types like eg IntPoint2D, IntSize2D,
IntRect2D and I made an IntRect2DIterator so that IntRect2D could be a
Sequence over its (discrete) points. With this I could rewrite the above
like so:
for pixelPosAsIntPoint2D in someIntRect2D {
... pixels[pixelPosAsIntPoint2D] ...
}
For some reason the first version (two nested for loops for x and y) is
always a bit faster than the abstracted version no matter how I write it
(tried using eg &+ instead of + etc).
Is it possible to write as a zero cost abstraction like this, if so, how?
If not, why?
PS
Note that eg this:
for y in someStartY ..< someStopY {
for x in someStartX ..< someStopX {
let pixelPosAsIntPoint2D = IntPoint2D(x: x, y: y)
... pixels[pixelPosAsIntPoint2D] ...
}
}
is exactly as fast as the top example (using just ... pixels[x, y] ...).
So the difference in execution time seems to be due to something in the
Iterator and not eg the pixel accessing subscript taking the 2d int point
type instead of separate x and y ints.
Here is one Iterator variant that I have tested:
struct Rect2DIntPointIterator : IteratorProtocol, Sequence {
let startX, startY, stopX, stopY: Int
var px, py: Int
init(rect: Rect2DInt) {
startX = rect.origin.x
startY = rect.origin.y
stopX = rect.maxX
stopY = rect.maxY
px = startX
py = startY
}
mutating func next() -> Point2DInt? {
defer { px = px &+ 1 }
if px == stopX {
px = startX
py = py &+ 1
if py == stopY { return nil }
}
return Point2DInt(x: px, y: py)
}
}
And here are typical execution times from an example test:
2.1 seconds using my Iterator (the fastest I can get it, no matter how I
try to rewrite it).
1.5 seconds using nested x, y for loops.
I'm pretty sure my testing is done thoroughly (measuring average of many
runs, using random data, avoiding dead code elimination, whole module
optimization, etc).
I have tried profiling the code and looking at the disassmbly but I'm
failing to understand what's going on.
So the ultimate answer would be in the form of a (2d, Int) Rectangle type
whose (2d, Int) Points can be iterated in a for loop, at zero cost compared
to doing the same using two nested for loops. Or an explanation of why this
is impossible.
DS
/Jens
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
