"Range loops aren’t always the most performant way" Do you have an example where there's a perf difference?
"In addition, sometimes you want the index. Or maybe you want to iterate backwards, or not start from the first, etc. Maybe you want the iterator because you remove it from the list at the bottom of the loop.... Seems like a rule for the sake of having a rule." I should have been more clear about this point. If you're using the index in the loop, doing reverse iteration, or not iterating from start-to-end this inspection is smart enough to realize it and will not suggest optimizing that type of loop. The loops that would be changes are _only_ the loops which are detected as equivalent to range-loops. Examples can be found here: https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-loop-convert.html or you can look at what's been changed in the ref PR. I've initially set our confidence level at 'reasonable' but we could also set to 'safe' which would further reduce the number of loops the check would apply to. -Kellen On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:54 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@apache.org> wrote: > -1 > > Range loops aren’t always the most performant way. In addition, sometimes > you want the index. Or maybe you want to iterate backwards, or not start > from the first, etc. Maybe you want the iterator because you remove it from > the list at the bottom of the loop.... Seems like a rule for the sake of > having a rule. > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:12 AM kellen sunderland < > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello MXNet devs, > > > > I'd like to discuss uniformly adopting C++11 range loops in the MXNet > > project. The benefits I see are: > > > > * Improved C++ readability (examples below). > > * Consistency with other languages. The range-loops are quite similar > to > > loops almost all other programming languages. Given we're a project that > > supports many languages this language consistency could be positive for > our > > community. > > * Consistency within the same project. Currently different authors have > > different loops styles which hurts codebase readability. > > * Best available performance. There are often multiple ways to write > > loops in C++ with subtle differences in performance and memory usage > > between loop methods. Using range-loops ensures we get the best possible > > perf using an intuitive loop pattern. > > * Slightly lower chance for bugs / OOB accesses when dealing with > indexing > > in an array for example. > > > > If we decide to enable this uniformly throughout the project we can > enable > > this policy with a simple clang-tidy configuration change. There would > be > > no need for reviewers to have to manually provide feedback when someone > > uses an older C++ loops style. > > > > -Kellen > > > > Reference PR: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12356/ > > Previous clang-tidy discussion on the list: > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b0ae5a9df5dfe0d9074cb2ebe432264db4fa2175b89fa43a5f6e36be@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E > > > > ------------------------- > > Examples: > > for (auto axis_iter = param.axis.begin() ; axis_iter!= param.axis.end(); > > ++axis_iter) { > > CHECK_LT(*axis_iter, static_cast<int>(ishape.ndim())); > > stride_[reverse_index] = ishape[*axis_iter]; > > ... > > --> > > for (int axis : param.axis) { > > CHECK_LT(axis, static_cast<int>(ishape.ndim())); > > stride_[reverse_index] = ishape[axis]; > > ... > > -------------------------- > > for (size_t i = 0; i < in_array.size(); i++) { > > auto &nd = in_array[i]; > > pre_temp_buf_.emplace_back(nd.shape(), nd.ctx(), true, nd.dtype()); > > } > > --> > > for (auto & nd : in_array) { > > pre_temp_buf_.emplace_back(nd.shape(), nd.ctx(), true, nd.dtype()); > > } > > >
