• Turun@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    It would be interesting to see if an iterator instead of a manual for loop would increase the performance of the base case.

    My guess is not, because the compiler should know they are equivalent, but would be interesting to check anyway.

    • Deebster@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I wonder if the compiler checks to see if the calls are pure and are therefore safe to run in parallel. It seems like the kind of thing the Rust compiler should be able to do.

      • TehPers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        If by parallel you mean across multiple threads in some map-reduce algorithm, the compiler will not do that automatically since that would be both extremely surprising behavior and in most cases, would make performance worse (it’d be interesting to see just how many shapes you’d need to iterate over before you start seeing performance benefits from map-reduce). If you’re referring to vectorization, then the Rust compiler does automatically do that in some cases, and I imagine it depends on how the area is calculated and whether the implementation can be inlined.

    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Do you mean this for loop?

      for shape in &shapes {
        accum += shape.area();
      }
      

      That does use an iterator

      for-in-loops, or to be more precise, iterator loops, are a simple syntactic sugar over a common practice within Rust, which is to loop over anything that implements IntoIterator until the iterator returned by .into_iter() returns None (or the loop body uses break).

      Anti Commercial AI thingy

      CC BY-NC-SA 4.0