auto length = last - first;
while (length > 0) {
auto half = length / 2;
if (comp(first[half], value)) {
// length - half equals half + length % 2
first += length - half;
}
length = half;
}
return first;
can be restructured with a conditional `first += half` and instead `length -= half` (see, e.g., Listing 2 in https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.05053). Doing it this way requires one final comparison when `length > 0` on entry, because the while condition is `length > 1`, but moves the subtraction off the critical path.
_Pragma("GCC unroll 9")
while (nelems > 1) {
auto half = nelems / 2;
nelems -= half;
first += (comp(first[half - 1], value)) \* half;
}
return first;
As long as we are sharing improvements, here is mine. Microbenchmarking numerous variations found this performed the best. If your arrays are smaller than the unrolling factor, you don’t even loop. You have exactly 1 branch that is executed exactly once in that case. This is the closest to branch free that a binary search can be.
I devised this a couple years ago for use in ZFS’ btree code:
It only works if the comparator is inlined, which is why I had to use a macro and duplicate the code everywhere. C++’s templates effectively do the same thing.
By the way, I notice that C++ favors comparators returning a boolean while C favors comparators returning -1, 0 or 1. Let me share this simple macro from ZFS:
#define TREE_CMP(a, b) (((a) > (b)) - ((a) < (b)))
Use that to generate -1, 0 or 1. Then if you want a boolean, compare the output to < 0 to get the boolean that a C++ comparator would return and as long as the comparator is inlined, the compiler will automatically simplify, such that you get only 1 comparison.
The C++ STL designers who opted for a boolean return value from comparators did premature optimization, since they had no reason to break with the C convention under C++’s "the compiler will inline and optimize" philosophy. The neat thing about the C way is that if you want to generate a boolean from the comparator, you have a choice for the boolean’s semantics (< 0 or <= 0) while C++ made that choice for you.
That said, I have never needed the latter and as a much younger developer, I thought that the C++ way was superior, but time has caused me to conclude the C guys got this right.
Finally, since I am on topic of comparators, there is a fairly famous example of how to generate -1, 0 or 1 when comparing against 0:
I only mention it since it is interesting and I like sharing interesting things. Reimplementing the signum function from there with TREE_CMP() does not generate code as good as the superoptimized example in godbolt:
I devised this a couple years ago for use in ZFS’ btree code:
https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/677c6f8457943fe5b56d7a...
Feel to have it under your choice of OSI approved license, including CC-0.
I implemented a variation of this in ZFS’ btree implementation a few years ago:
https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/677c6f8457943fe5b56d7a...
It only works if the comparator is inlined, which is why I had to use a macro and duplicate the code everywhere. C++’s templates effectively do the same thing.
By the way, I notice that C++ favors comparators returning a boolean while C favors comparators returning -1, 0 or 1. Let me share this simple macro from ZFS:
#define TREE_CMP(a, b) (((a) > (b)) - ((a) < (b)))
Use that to generate -1, 0 or 1. Then if you want a boolean, compare the output to < 0 to get the boolean that a C++ comparator would return and as long as the comparator is inlined, the compiler will automatically simplify, such that you get only 1 comparison.
The C++ STL designers who opted for a boolean return value from comparators did premature optimization, since they had no reason to break with the C convention under C++’s "the compiler will inline and optimize" philosophy. The neat thing about the C way is that if you want to generate a boolean from the comparator, you have a choice for the boolean’s semantics (< 0 or <= 0) while C++ made that choice for you.
That said, I have never needed the latter and as a much younger developer, I thought that the C++ way was superior, but time has caused me to conclude the C guys got this right.
Finally, since I am on topic of comparators, there is a fairly famous example of how to generate -1, 0 or 1 when comparing against 0:
https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs6120/2020fa/blog/super-...
I only mention it since it is interesting and I like sharing interesting things. Reimplementing the signum function from there with TREE_CMP() does not generate code as good as the superoptimized example in godbolt:
https://godbolt.org/z/1j8nWjnqP
It is probably an optimization opportunity for GCC.