[utf8-validator] eliminate unnecessary comparison from must_be_2_3_continuation #2113
Conversation
|
@Validark I think your assumption is correct. I am running test, and I expect to merge your PR. |
| simd8<bool> is_third_byte = prev2 >= uint8_t(0xe0u); | ||
| simd8<bool> is_fourth_byte = prev3 >= uint8_t(0xf0u); | ||
| return is_third_byte ^ is_fourth_byte; | ||
| simdjson_inline simd8<uint8_t> must_be_2_3_continuation(const simd8<uint8_t> prev2, const simd8<uint8_t> prev3) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure that the ARM change buys you something. Does it?
My expectation is that it is not going to affect the performance. Do you disagree?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Based on my use of analogous techniques in Zig, I would think the arm emit would have an equal number of instructions either way. I made the change to the arm implementation solely because I was thinking it has to have the same return type as the other implementations. I suppose I could have achieved that in a different way, but I'm not sure it makes a difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good answer. I just wanted to make sure I understood the change.
|
@Validark I am pushing your proposal to another library (simdutf), and I am getting a nice boost: |
|
I am merging this. This is very nice. |
Hello, I just thought of this optimization while refactoring the code in simdjzon.
For Zig, which uses LLVM, this optimization does not occur automatically. For that, I have submitted an issue to LLVM.
However, this project compiles with multiple compilers which may or may not do this optimization automatically, so I have edited your code to reflect the optimization idea. It is very basic, and I did not test the modified C++ code. But it looks right to me. (I did test my Zig implementation)
Hope it works for you.
‒ Validark
P.S. I assumed
simd8<uint8_t> must23_80 = must23 & uint8_t(0x80);splats the0x80. Is that correct?