I agree that active C++ developers should be the ones making these choices. The downside to that is that many of these people are already pretty busy. To make the best use possible of their time it would probably make sense to create a concise doc with proposed style changes and ETAs rather than focusing on a single change (modernized range loops). We've got the infrastructure in place now to support any decisions made, and I think it's in the best interest of the project as it will (1) unify coding style to help readability and (2) make the lifes easier for reviewers which are a critical resource on this project.
I've update my PR such that it still modernizes all existing loops, but it will now only issue a warning in the case that someone commits an older or slower version of a loop. Of course as we've mentioned a few times this only applies to cases where loops can be drop-in replaces with range loops. I.e. no loops indexes are actively used, etc. Would you be alright with merging this change with warnings instead of errors for the time being Chris? On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:20 PM Pedro Larroy <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > @Chris: do you have data on the performance difference? As far as I know > there's a "rewrite rule" like the one between lambdas and C++ functors, so > performance should be very well defined, but maybe there's something that > you are point out that we are missing. > > Having a consistent and concise code base is beneficial, I think what > Kellen is advocating is to use range loops whenever possible, not > prescribing its usage on every case, if you have to iterate backwards there > are other ways such as backwards iterator or others. > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 6:54 AM Chris Olivier <[email protected]> > 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 < > > [email protected]> 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()); > > > } > > > > > >
