I stumbled upon this piece of code in .NET's List source code:
// Following trick can reduce the range check by one
if ((uint) index >= (uint)_size) {
ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
Apparently this is more efficient (?) than if (index < 0 || index >= _size)
I am curious about the rationale behind the trick. Is a single branch instruction really more expensive than two conversions to uint? Or is there some other optimization going on that will make this code faster than an additional numeric comparison?
To address the elephant in the room: yes, this is micro optimization, no I do not intend to use this everywhere in my code – I'm just curious ;)
From MS Partition I, section 12.1 (Supported data types):
The signed integer types (int8, int16, int32, int64, and native int) and their corresponding unsigned integer types (unsigned int8, unsigned int16, unsigned int32, unsigned int64, and native unsigned int) differ only in how the bits of the integer are interpreted. For those operations in which an unsigned integer is treated differently from a signed integer (e.g., in comparisons or arithmetic with overflow) there are separate instructions for treating an integer as unsigned (e.g., cgt.un and add.ovf.un).
That is, the conversion from an int to a uint is merely a matter of book-keeping - from now on, the value on the stack/in a register is now known to be an unsigned int rather than an int.
So the two conversions should be "free" once the code is JITted, and then the unsigned comparison operation can be performed.
Let's say we have:
public void TestIndex1(int index)
{
if(index < 0 || index >= _size)
ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
public void TestIndex2(int index)
{
if((uint)index >= (uint)_size)
ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
Let's compile these and look at ILSpy:
.method public hidebysig
instance void TestIndex1 (
int32 index
) cil managed
{
IL_0000: ldarg.1
IL_0001: ldc.i4.0
IL_0002: blt.s IL_000d
IL_0004: ldarg.1
IL_0005: ldarg.0
IL_0006: ldfld int32 TempTest.TestClass::_size
IL_000b: bge.s IL_0012
IL_000d: call void TempTest.ThrowHelper::ThrowArgumentOutOfRangeException()
IL_0012: ret
}
.method public hidebysig
instance void TestIndex2 (
int32 index
) cil managed
{
IL_0000: ldarg.1
IL_0001: ldarg.0
IL_0002: ldfld int32 TempTest.TestClass::_size
IL_0007: blt.un.s IL_000e
IL_0009: call void TempTest.ThrowHelper::ThrowArgumentOutOfRangeException()
IL_000e: ret
}
It's easy to see that the second has less code, with one less branch.
Really, there's no cast at all, there's the choice of whether to use blt.s and bge.s or to use blt.s.un, where the latter treats the integers passed as unsigned while the former treats them as signed.
(Note for those not familiar with CIL, since this is a C# question with a CIL answer, bge.s, blt.s and blt.s.un are the "short" versions of bge, blt and blt.un respectively. blt pops two values off the stack and branches if the first is less than the second when considering them as signed values while blt.un pops two values of the stack and branches if the first is less than the second when considering them as unsigned values).
It's utterly a micro-opt, but there are times when micro-opt's are worth doing. Consider further, that with the rest of the code in the method body this could mean the difference between something falling inside the jitters limits for inlining or not, and if they're bothering to have a helper for throwing out of range exceptions they're probably attempting to ensure inlining happens if at all possible, and the extra 4 bytes could make all the difference.
Indeed, it's quite likely for that inlining difference to be a much bigger deal than the reduction of one branch. There aren't a lot of times when going out of your way to ensure inlining happens is worth it, but a core method of a class of such heavy use as List<T> would certainly be one of them.
Note that this trick won't work if your project is checked instead of unchecked. Best case it will be slower (because each cast will need to be checked against overflow) (or at least not-faster), worst case you will get an OverflowException if you try to pass -1 as the index (instead of your exception).
If you want to write it "correctly" and in a more "will surely work" way, you should put a
unchecked
{
// test
}
all around the test.
Assuming _sizeis an integer, private to the list and index is the argument to this function which's validity needs to be tested.
Assuming further that _size is always >= 0.
Then the original test would have been:
if(index < 0 || index > size) throw exception
The optimized version
if((uint)index > (uint)_size) throw exception
has one comparison (as opsed to two int he former example.) Because the cast just reinterpretes the bits and makes the >in fact an unsigned comparison, no additonal CPU cycles are used for it.
Why does it work?
The results are simple/trivial as long as index >= 0.
If index < 0 the (uint)index will turn it into a very large number:
Example: 0xFFFF is -1 as int, but 65535 as uint, thus
(uint)-1 > (uint)x
is always true if x was positive.
Yes, this is more efficient. The JIT does the same trick when range-checking array accesses.
The transformation and reasoning is as follows:
i >= 0 && i < array.Length becomes (uint)i < (uint)array.Length because array.Length <= int.MaxValue so that array.Length has the same value as (uint)array.Length. If i happens to be negative then (uint)i > int.MaxValue and the check fails.
Apparently in real life it isn't faster. Check this: https://dotnetfiddle.net/lZKHmn
Turns out, that thanks to Intel's branch prediction and parallel execution the more obvious and readable code actually works faster...
Here's the code:
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
public class Program
{
const int MAX_ITERATIONS = 10000000;
const int MAX_SIZE = 1000;
public static void Main()
{
var timer = new Stopwatch();
Random rand = new Random();
long InRange = 0;
long OutOfRange = 0;
timer.Start();
for ( int i = 0; i < MAX_ITERATIONS; i++ ) {
var x = rand.Next( MAX_SIZE * 2 ) - MAX_SIZE;
if ( x < 0 || x > MAX_SIZE ) {
OutOfRange++;
} else {
InRange++;
}
}
timer.Stop();
Console.WriteLine( "Comparision 1: " + InRange + "/" + OutOfRange + ", elapsed: " + timer.ElapsedMilliseconds + "ms" );
rand = new Random();
InRange = 0;
OutOfRange = 0;
timer.Reset();
timer.Start();
for ( int i = 0; i < MAX_ITERATIONS; i++ ) {
var x = rand.Next( MAX_SIZE * 2 ) - MAX_SIZE;
if ( (uint) x > (uint) MAX_SIZE ) {
OutOfRange++;
} else {
InRange++;
}
}
timer.Stop();
Console.WriteLine( "Comparision 2: " + InRange + "/" + OutOfRange + ", elapsed: " + timer.ElapsedMilliseconds + "ms" );
}
}
While exploring this on an intel processor I found no differene in execution times, possibly due to multiple integer execution units.
But when doing this on 16MHZ real-time microprocessor with neither branch prediction nor integer execution units there were notable differences.
1 million iterations of the slower code took 1761 ms
int slower(char *a, long i)
{
if (i < 0 || i >= 10)
return 0;
return a[i];
}
1 million iterations faster code took 1635 ms
int faster(char *a, long i)
{
if ((unsigned int)i >= 10)
return 0;
return a[i];
}
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29343533/is-it-more-efficient-to-perform-a-range-check-by-casting-to-uint-instead-of-chec