Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions

On Wed, 29 May 2024 01:29:00 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 28/05/2024 22:45, Michael S wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2024 23:23:15 +0300
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

>
Also, I think that random numbers are close to worst case for
branch predictor / loop length predictor in my inner loop.
Were I thinking about random case upfront, I'd code an inner loop
differently. I'd always copy 4 octets (comma would be stored in the
same table). After that I would update outptr by length taken from
additional table, similarly, but not identically to your method
below.

 
That's what I had in mind:
 

 

   unsigned char bin2dec[256][MAX_CHAR_PER_NUM+1]; //
   bin2dec[MAX_CHAR_PER_NUM] => length for (int i = 0; i < 256;++i)
{ 

 
Is this a comment that has wrapped?
 
After fixing a few such line breaks, this runs at 3.6 seconds
compared with 4.1 seconds for the original.
 
Although I don't quite understand the comments about branch
prediction.
 
I think runtime is still primarily spent in I/O.
 

That's undoubtedly correct.
But high branch mispredict rate still can add to total time.
Suppose we have branch misprediction at the end of inner loop in 40% of
the input bytes. On the processor that was running my original test
(Intel Haswell at 4GHz) each mispredict cost ~15 clocks = 3.75 ns.
3.75ns * 0.4 * 100M = 150 msec
I don't know how much it costs on your hardware since you didn't tell
me what it is.

But I am more intrigued by slowness on WSL.
Did you compare native vs mounted file systems?

If I take the 1.9 second version, and remove the fwrite, then it runs
in 0.8 seconds. 0.7 of that is generating the text (366MB's worth, a
line at a time).
 
In my language that part takes 0.9 seconds, which is a more typical
difference due to gcc's superior optimiser.