On 03/05/16 16:42 +0200, Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
Ah, thanks, I forgot to re-attach when I sent to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-03 14:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
ENOPATCH
On 1 May 2016 at 15:21, Eelis <ee...@eelis.net> wrote:
Sorry, forgot to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-01 16:18, Eelis wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch optimizes std::shuffle for the very common case
where the generator range is large enough that a single invocation
can produce two swap positions.
This reduces the runtime of the following testcase by 37% on my machine:
int main()
{
std::mt19937 gen;
std::vector<int> v;
v.reserve(10000);
for (int i = 0; i != 10000; ++i)
{
v.push_back(i);
std::shuffle(v.begin(), v.end(), gen);
}
std::cout << v.front() << '\n';
}
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Eelis
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
===================================================================
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h (revision 235680)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h (working copy)
@@ -3708,6 +3708,22 @@
#endif
#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDINT_TR1
+
+ template<typename _IntType, typename _UniformRandomNumberGenerator>
We should avoid introducing new names based on "uniform random number
generator" and use _UniformRandomBitGenerator as per
https://wg21.link/p0346r1
+ inline _IntType
+ __generate_random_index_below(_IntType __bound,
_UniformRandomNumberGenerator& __g)
+ {
+ const _IntType __urngrange = __g.max() - __g.min() + 1;
Similarly, let's use __urbgrange here.
+ const _IntType __scaling = __urngrange / __bound;
I think I'd like either a comment on the function documenting the
assumption about __bound and __g, or an explicit check:
__glibcxx_assert( __scaling >= __bound );
+ const _IntType __past = __bound * __scaling;
+
+ for (;;)
+ {
+ const _IntType __r = _IntType(__g()) - __g.min();
+ if (__r < __past) return __r / __scaling;
This is basically the same algorithm as uniform_int_distribution so
doesn't introduce any bias, right?
Is this significantly faster than just using
uniform_int_distribution<_IntType>{0, __bound - 1}(__g) so we don't
need to duplicate the logic? (And people maintaining the code won't
reconvince themselves it's correct every time they look at it :-)
+ }
+ }
+
/**
* @brief Shuffle the elements of a sequence using a uniform random
* number generator.
@@ -3740,6 +3756,40 @@
typedef typename std::make_unsigned<_DistanceType>::type __ud_type;
typedef typename std::uniform_int_distribution<__ud_type> __distr_type;
typedef typename __distr_type::param_type __p_type;
+
+ typedef typename
std::remove_reference<_UniformRandomNumberGenerator>::type _Gen;
+ typedef typename std::common_type<typename _Gen::result_type,
__ud_type>::type __uc_type;
+
+ const __uc_type __urngrange = _Gen::max() - _Gen::min() + 1;
+ const __uc_type __urange = __uc_type(__last - __first);
+
+ if (__urngrange / __urange >= __urange)
+ // I.e. (__urngrange >= __urange * __urange) but without wrap issues.
+ {
+ for (_RandomAccessIterator __i = __first + 1; __i != __last; )
+ {
+ const __uc_type __swap_range = __uc_type(__i - __first) + 1;
+
+ if (__i + 1 == __last)
Could we hoist this test out of the loop somehow?
If we change the loop condition to be __i+1 < __last we don't need to
test it on every iteration, and then after the loop we can just do
the final swap if (__urange % 2).
+ {
+ const __uc_type __pos = __generate_random_index_below(__swap_range,
__g);
+ std::iter_swap(__i, __first + __pos);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ // Use a single generator invocation to produce swap positions for
+ // both of the next two elements:
+
+ const __uc_type __comp_range = __swap_range * (__swap_range + 1);
+ const __uc_type __pospos =
__generate_random_index_below(__comp_range, __g);
+
+ std::iter_swap(__i++, __first + (__pospos % __swap_range));
+ std::iter_swap(__i++, __first + (__pospos / __swap_range));
I think I've convinced myself this is correct :-)
Values of __pospos will be uniformly distributed in [0, __comp_range)
and so the / and % results will be too.
+ }
+
+ return;
+ }
+
__distr_type __d;
for (_RandomAccessIterator __i = __first + 1; __i != __last; ++__i)
