Dorival Pedroso,
PowP has a lot of code. PowG is simpler and it is modestly slower for small
values of n and much faster for larger values of n.
func PowG(x float64, n uint32) float64 {
y := 1.0
for i := n; i > 0; i >>= 1 {
if i&1 == 1 {
y *= x
}
x *= x
}
return y
}
BenchmarkPowP1 1000000000 2.89 ns/op
BenchmarkPowP5 100000000 13.6 ns/op
BenchmarkPowP10 50000000 29.2 ns/op
BenchmarkPowP20 20000000 89.6 ns/op
BenchmarkPowP200 200000 11666 ns/op
BenchmarkPowG1 1000000000 2.66 ns/op
BenchmarkPowG5 100000000 17.9 ns/op
BenchmarkPowG10 30000000 45.1 ns/op
BenchmarkPowG20 20000000 97.7 ns/op
BenchmarkPowG200 300000 3972 ns/op
Peter
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:08:36 AM UTC, Dorival Pedroso wrote:
>
> Since my ASM skills are limited, for positive integers, I'm planning on
> using:
>
> // PowP computes real raised to positive integer xⁿ
> func PowP(x float64, n uint32) (r float64) {
> if n == 0 {
> return 1.0
> }
> if n == 1 {
> return x
> }
> if n == 2 {
> return x * x
> }
> if n == 3 {
> return x * x * x
> }
> if n == 4 {
> r = x * x
> return r * r
> }
> if n == 5 {
> r = x * x
> return r * r * x
> }
> if n == 6 {
> r = x * x * x
> return r * r
> }
> if n == 7 {
> r = x * x * x
> return r * r * x
> }
> if n == 8 {
> r = x * x * x * x
> return r * r
> }
> if n == 9 {
> r = x * x * x
> return r * r * r
> }
> if n == 10 {
> r = x * x * x
> return r * r * r * x
> }
> r = x * x * x
> r = r * r * r * x
> var i uint32
> for i = 11; i <= 20; i++ {
> r *= x
> if n == i {
> return
> }
> }
> return math.Pow(x, float64(n))
> }
>
> which gives a speedup of 5-8 times for small positive integers (<20). the
> case of negative integers could be handled too.
>
> output:
> BenchmarkPowP10-32 50000000 30.4 ns/op
> BenchmarkPowP10std-32 5000000 247 ns/op
> BenchmarkPowP20-32 20000000 98.2 ns/op
> BenchmarkPowP20std-32 3000000 561 ns/op
> BenchmarkPowP200-32 200000 10145 ns/op
> BenchmarkPowP200std-32 200000 9231 ns/op
>
> all files are here:
> https://gist.github.com/cpmech/9f871df5b59fa8407221b0d3fb361a3d
>
> I'm also looking at the Cephes library: http://www.netlib.org/cephes/ for
> ideas
>
> maybe we could have a similar function in Go (and many more optimised
> ones, especially for complex numbers...)
>
> cheers
> d
>
>
>
> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 4:20:41 PM UTC+10, Dorival Pedroso wrote:
>>
>> I've noticed that this C code:
>>
>> #include "math.h"
>> int main() {
>> double x = 2.5;
>> int Nmax = 10000000;
>> for (int N=0; N<Nmax; N++) {
>> for (int i=0; i<20; i++) {
>> pow(x, i);
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> can run up to 50x faster than this Go code:
>>
>> package main
>>
>> import "math"
>>
>> func main() {
>> x := 2.5
>> Nmax := 10000000
>> for N := 0; N < Nmax; N++ {
>> for i := 0; i < 20; i++ {
>> math.Pow(x, float64(i))
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> The C code was compiled with: gcc -O2 ccode.c -o ccode -lm
>> then run with time ./ccode
>>
>> The Go code was compiled with: go build gcode.go
>> then run with time ./gcode
>>
>> I've used the time command on Linux (Ubuntu) to get some estimate.
>>
>> So the question is: how can we make the Go code faster?
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
