On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 09:23:01 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
Static arrays suffer from:

1) bad implementation that allocates on the heap when we do: "int[3]=[1,2,3];"

2) lack of syntactic sugar to declare them on on the fly, eg when we want to pass a static array to a function without declaring an intermediate variable. See my proposal for "auto x=[1,2,3]s" here: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.general/90035, which would allow one to pass a static array to a function eg: fun([1,2,3]s) without having to do int[3] temp; fun(temp), when it's not passed by ref.

If 90035 won't get implemented, what about a library solution?

Below, we can construct a static array on the fly as:
"auto x=S(1,2,3);"
as opposed to:
"int[3] x=[1,2,3]"

advantages:
a) can directly pass to a function without creating temp variable
b) less verbose
c) no heap allocations
d) 40 times faster in the example below (even 2.3x faster than C, for some reason which eludes me)


----
import std.stdio,std.conv;
import std.traits:CommonType;

auto S(T...)(T a) if(!is(CommonType!T == void )){ //check to prevent illegal stuff like S([],2)
        alias CommonType!T T0;
        T0[T.length]ret;
        foreach(i,ai;a)
                ret[i]=ai;
        return ret;
}

void main(){
        size_t n=1000000,z=0,i=0,j=0;
        for(i=0;i<n;i++){
// auto a=S(cast(size_t)i,i+1,i+2,i+3,i+4,i+5,i+6,i+7,i+8,i+9); //time: 0.351 with LDC

size_t[10] a=[i,i+1,i+2,i+3,i+4,i+5,i+6,i+7,i+8,i+9]; //time: 14.049 with LDC, 16s with dmd (-inline -O -release)
                for(j=0;j<9;j++){z+=a[j];}
        }
        TOC;    
        writeln(z); //to prevent optimizing away result (?)
}
----



interestingly, this seems faster than the C version below. Why is that so?

----
//test.c:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
        size_t n=100000000,z=0,i=0,j=0;
        for(i=0;i<n;i++){
                size_t a[10]={i,i+1,i+2,i+3,i+4,i+5,i+6,i+7,i+8,i+9};
                for(j=0;j<9;j++){z+=a[j];}
        }
        printf("%lu\n",z);
        return 0;
}
----
gcc -O2 test.c -o test && time ./test   
real    0m0.803s

Very interesting! Anything that beats c performance is a very big plus for D.

Btw,  you can replace the loop in S with
ret[] = a[];
Which should be even faster.

Also, to check that the assignment is being optimised away, try using different data in each pass.

Reply via email to