3 ms·

The performance and power use cost to checking bounds is trivial! Apple has tested this, on mobile devices even, when working on -fbounds-safety. From the slid

The performance and power use cost to checking bounds is trivial! Apple has tested this, on mobile devices even, when working on -fbounds-safety. From the slides: System-level performance impact • Measurement on iOS • 0-8% binary size increase per project • No measurable performance or power impact on boot, app launch • Minor overall performance impact on audio decoding/encoding (1%) • System-level performance cost is remarkably low and worth paying for the security benefit Some more specific synthetic benchmarks suites reported ~5% runtime cost for bounds checking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK9bfrsMdAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK9bfrsMdAM https://llvm.org/devmtg/2023-05/slides/TechnicalTalks-May11/01-Na-fbounds-safety.pdf https://llvm.org/devmtg/2023-05/slides/TechnicalTalks-May11/... Bounds checking being omitted due to performance is mostly a myth, the only time this should ever be believed is in very specific circumstances such as performance critical code and when the impact has actually been measured!

physicsguy 3y ago
Whether it's trivial or not depends totally on the workflow. A 5% runtime cost can be enormous - when I was in academia I was running thousands of simulations on big clusters like ARCHER, some of which could take up to a fortnight to run. In those cases, a 5% cost can add a whole other working day to the runtime!
- deathanatos 3y ago
  > Whether it's trivial or not depends totally on the workflow. People here are talking about language defaults, and that the default should be safe, and while, yes, technically you can construe a workflow they're not going to work for, they work for most. That doesn't prevent your ARCHER simulation from calling — hopefully only at sites that profiling indicates need it — .yolo_at(legit_index_totes) (or whatever one might call the method) & segfaulting after burning a few days worth of CPU time away.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Do you believe that is a common case, or an exceptional one?
  - physicsguy 3y ago
    I don't think it's particularly exceptional for the sorts of people that are still using C++ (and making a conscious decision to do so over Rust for e.g.). If you're writing 'standard' C++ these days, you're probably already making use of std::array, std::vector, etc. anyway. The only area where people are working on modern codebases I've not seen so much of that is in HPC stuff and embedded.

physicsguy 3y ago

Whether it's trivial or not depends totally on the workflow. A 5% runtime cost can be enormous - when I was in academia I was running thousands of simulations on big clusters like ARCHER, some of which could take up to a fortnight to run. In those cases, a 5% cost can add a whole other working day to the runtime!

deathanatos 3y ago
> Whether it's trivial or not depends totally on the workflow. People here are talking about language defaults, and that the default should be safe, and while, yes, technically you can construe a workflow they're not going to work for, they work for most. That doesn't prevent your ARCHER simulation from calling — hopefully only at sites that profiling indicates need it — .yolo_at(legit_index_totes) (or whatever one might call the method) & segfaulting after burning a few days worth of CPU time away.
paulddraper 3y ago
Do you believe that is a common case, or an exceptional one?
- physicsguy 3y ago
  I don't think it's particularly exceptional for the sorts of people that are still using C++ (and making a conscious decision to do so over Rust for e.g.). If you're writing 'standard' C++ these days, you're probably already making use of std::array, std::vector, etc. anyway. The only area where people are working on modern codebases I've not seen so much of that is in HPC stuff and embedded.