Unsafe removal #1488
Open
Unsafe removal #1488
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Removes unsafe implementations where in theory it should not affect perfoemance. I checked all implmenetations in compiler explorer, they give the equivalent code except for
slice.fill()which is one zero check longer.fastcmp is actually longer in assembly so i removed it as it contained unsafe too. the default cmp also calls the libc memcmp https://godbolt.org/z/83xTP74x1
Benchmarks are all over the place, so it's difficult to have a clear reading, it looks like a +-5% change in both ways with a slight bias for improvement.
If someone else can benchmark and corroborate my findings it would be great.
My benchmarks were done on a raid0 nvme windows machine.
Related to #1487