In theory, the compiler could potentially pull the bounds check out of the loop
since the loop parameters are run-time constants, which means that the bounds
check doesn't actually need to happen on each access.
-- John
On Aug 29, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Ed Scheinerman
wrote:
> The compiler can't
The compiler can't know how far I will traverse the array. That's passed in
as an argument. I've run this short of the end (and past the end) and
timings are always the same.
On Friday, August 29, 2014, Johan Sigfrids wrote:
> I believe that for simple cases the compiler is smart enough to remov
I believe that for simple cases the compiler is smart enough to remove
bound checking on its own. In that case adding @inbounds won't help.
On Friday, August 29, 2014 8:03:35 PM UTC+3, Ed Scheinerman wrote:
>
> I'd like to use @inbounds also to speed up code that I'm 100% sure has
> proper array
I'd like to use @inbounds also to speed up code that I'm 100% sure has
proper array indices. But I tried the following experiment and found no
significant difference using or omitting @inbounds before the array access.
What am I doing wrong? Or is bounds checking so super efficient that I
shoul
Steve,
`@inbounds` is certainly tricky because of the lack of documentation, which
I think is slightly on purpose as this is meant to be for more advanced
usage.
The main insight to using `@inbounds` correctly is realizing that
`@inbounds expression` returns the value `nothing`. That's why your f
Dear Julia users,
The usage of the @inbounds macro is not explained the manual, and its
syntax appears to be strange. Consider the three functions at the end of
this posting. Only the third one works -- why?
In general, I think @inbounds is broken. Besides the weird syntax, it has
two other
