unrolling for loops in a special case function

user_8625927 0
Viewed 731

So I'm trying to optimize some code. I have a function with a variable sized loop. However for efficiency sake I want to make cases with 1, 2 and 3 sized loops special cases that are completely unrolled. My approach so far is to declare the loop size as a const parameter then define wrapper functions that call the main function handing it a literal for the const value. I've included a code snip it illustrating the kind of thing i have in mind.

inline void someFunction (const int a)
{
    for (int i=0; i<a; i++)
    {
        // do something with i.
    }
}

void specialCase()
{
    someFunction (3);
}

void generalCase(int a)
{
    someFunction (a);
}

So my question is is it reasonable for me to expect my compiler (GCC) to unroll the for loop inside of specialCase. I'm mean obviously I can copy - paste the contents of someFunction into specialCase and replace a with 3 but I'd rather only deal with one definition of someFunction in my code for clarity sake.

loop-unrolling gcc c++
4 Answers

How about this C++20 unrolling-helpers:

#pragma once
#include <utility>
#include <concepts>
#include <iterator>

template<size_t N, typename Fn>
    requires (N >= 1) && requires( Fn fn, size_t i ) { { fn( i ) } -> std::same_as<void>; }
inline
void unroll( Fn fn )
{
    auto unroll_n = [&]<size_t ... Indices>( std::index_sequence<Indices ...> )
    {
        (fn( Indices ), ...);
    };
    unroll_n( std::make_index_sequence<N>() );
}

template<size_t N, typename Fn>
    requires (N >= 1) && requires( Fn fn ) { { fn() } -> std::same_as<void>; }
inline
void unroll( Fn fn )
{
    auto unroll_n = [&]<size_t ... Indices>( std::index_sequence<Indices ...> )
    {
        return ((Indices, fn()), ...);
    };
    unroll_n( std::make_index_sequence<N>() );
}

template<size_t N, typename Fn>
    requires (N >= 1) && requires( Fn fn, size_t i ) { { fn( i ) } -> std::convertible_to<bool>; }
inline
bool unroll( Fn fn )
{
    auto unroll_n = [&]<size_t ... Indices>( std::index_sequence<Indices ...> ) -> bool
    {
        return (fn( Indices ) && ...);
    };
    return unroll_n( std::make_index_sequence<N>() );
}

template<size_t N, typename Fn>
    requires (N >= 1) && requires( Fn fn ) { { fn() } -> std::convertible_to<bool>; }
inline
bool unroll( Fn fn )
{
    auto unroll_n = [&]<size_t ... Indices>( std::index_sequence<Indices ...> ) -> bool
    {
        return ((Indices, fn()) && ...);
    };
    return unroll_n( std::make_index_sequence<N>() );
}

template<std::size_t N, typename RandomIt, typename UnaryFunction>
    requires std::random_access_iterator<RandomIt>
    && requires( UnaryFunction fn, typename std::iterator_traits<RandomIt>::value_type elem ) { { fn( elem ) }; }
inline
RandomIt unroll_for_each( RandomIt begin, RandomIt end, UnaryFunction fn )
{
    RandomIt &it = begin;
    if constexpr( N > 1 )
        for( ; it + N <= end; it += N )
            unroll<N>( [&]( size_t i ) { fn( it[i] ); } );
    for( ; it < end; ++it )
        fn( *begin );
    return it;
}

But be aware that the unrolling-factor is crucial here. Unrolling is not always beneficial and sometimes unrolling beyond the optimal CPU-specific unrolling-factor drops to the performance without unrolling.

user_64696900
Related