Subject: Re: [boost] Accelerating algorithms with SIMD - Segmented iterators and alternatives
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-14 04:23:06
At Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:08:43 -0700,
Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 08:04 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
> > At Wed, 13 Oct 2010 03:44:37 -0700,
> > Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> >> Seems to me segmented iterators and a visitation-based/push-based
> >> iteration address fundamentally different problems. At least, I don't
> >> see how segmented iterators help here. The problem that
> >> visitation-based iteration seems to try to solve is improving
> >> iteration efficiency over join(t)_range-like ranges...
> > That's the same problem (in essence) that segmented iterators are
> > solving. Did you read the Austern paper?
> Yes. But I'm not convinced yet that iterators exposing the
> segmentation of the data structure are the right solution to
> presenting a flattened view of that data structure.
Good; that's not what they're for ;-)
> 1) It doesn't play nice with standard C++ looping constructs,
> specifically for loops.
The whole point of hierarchical algorithms is to avoid flat loops for
segmented data structures.
> 2) I have yet to see a benchmark comparison between segmented
> iterators and alternatives (other than a side-note claim in the
> paper). I'm open to looking at some specific comparisons if one has
> already done this, and this is something I'm interested enough in that
> I might try to do myself. Seems to me a more general solution is a
> "flat_multirange_iterator" templated on the outer range and the
> "segmentation depth". I.e., a flat_multirange_iterator< vector<
> vector<T> >, 2 > would iterate over the T's.
That's gonna be slow. Lots of testing and branching.
"Note that the joined range incurs a performance cost due to the
need to check if the end of a range has been reached internally
> To address your claim that "that's the same problem ... that segmented
> iterators are solving", what I meant by a join_range or joint_range
> is, essentially, a flattened out Boost.Fusion sequence of ranges of
> *differing* types (but with compatible value_type's and
> references). E.g., the thing that boost::join  returns.
> Segmented iterators can't deal with such ranges (at least with a
> strict reading of Austern's paper),
I don't see why you say that.
> and I think such ranges are closer to what Mathias has in mind (to
> be verified......). But perhaps I'm just not seeing your
> generalization beyond the immediate scope of the Austern paper?
> - Jeff
Looks like this doc is missing something about the value/reference
type requirements, BTW.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk