3 ms·

I keep ignoring nim for some reason. How fast is it with all the checks on? The benchmarks for it julia, and swift typically turn off safety checks, which is no

I keep ignoring nim for some reason. How fast is it with all the checks on? The benchmarks for it julia, and swift typically turn off safety checks, which is not how I would run them.

adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
In Julia, at least, bounds checks tend to be a pretty minor hit (~20%) unless the bounds check gets in the way of vectorization
cb321 1y ago
Since anything/0 = infinity, these kinds of things always depend upon what programs do and as a sibling comment correctly observes how much they interfere with SIMD autovectorization and sevral other things. That said, as a rough guideline, nim c -d=release can certainly be almost the same speed as -d=danger and is often within a few (single digits) percent. E.g.: .../bu(main)$ nim c -d=useMalloc --panics=on --cc=clang -d=release -o=/t/rel unfold.nim Hint: mm: orc; opt: speed; options: -d:release 61608 lines; 0.976s; 140.723MiB peakmem; proj: .../bu/unfold.nim; out: /t/rel [SuccessX] .../bu(main)$ nim c -d=useMalloc --panics=on --cc=clang -d=danger -o=/t/dan unfold.nim Hint: mm: orc; opt: speed; options: -d:danger 61608 lines; 2.705s; 141.629MiB peakmem; proj: .../bu/unfold.nim; out: /t/dan [SuccessX] .../bu(main)$ seq 1 100000 > /t/dat .../bu(main)$ /t /t$ re=(chrt 99 taskset -c 2 env -i HOME=$HOME PATH=$PATH) /t$ $re tim "./dan -n50 <dat>/n" "./rel -n50 <dat>/n" 225.5 +- 1.2 μs (AlreadySubtracted)Overhead 4177 +- 15 μs ./dan -n50 <dat>/n 4302 +- 17 μs ./rel -n50 <dat>/n /t$ a (4302 +- 17)/(4177 +- 15) 1.0299 +- 0.0055 /t$ a 299./55 5.43636... # kurtosis=>5.4 sigmas is not so significant Of course, as per my first sentence, the best benchmarks are your own applications run against your own data and its idiosyncratic distributions. EDIT: btw, /t -> /tmp which is a /dev/shm bind mount while /n -> /dev/null.

I keep ignoring nim for some reason. How fast is it with all the checks on? The benchmarks for it julia, and swift typically turn off safety checks, which is not how I would run them.

adgjlsfhk1 1y ago

In Julia, at least, bounds checks tend to be a pretty minor hit (~20%) unless the bounds check gets in the way of vectorization

cb321 1y ago

Since anything/0 = infinity, these kinds of things always depend upon what programs do and as a sibling comment correctly observes how much they interfere with SIMD autovectorization and sevral other things. That said, as a rough guideline, nim c -d=release can certainly be almost the same speed as -d=danger and is often within a few (single digits) percent. E.g.: .../bu(main)$ nim c -d=useMalloc --panics=on --cc=clang -d=release -o=/t/rel unfold.nim Hint: mm: orc; opt: speed; options: -d:release 61608 lines; 0.976s; 140.723MiB peakmem; proj: .../bu/unfold.nim; out: /t/rel [SuccessX] .../bu(main)$ nim c -d=useMalloc --panics=on --cc=clang -d=danger -o=/t/dan unfold.nim Hint: mm: orc; opt: speed; options: -d:danger 61608 lines; 2.705s; 141.629MiB peakmem; proj: .../bu/unfold.nim; out: /t/dan [SuccessX] .../bu(main)$ seq 1 100000 > /t/dat .../bu(main)$ /t /t$ re=(chrt 99 taskset -c 2 env -i HOME=$HOME PATH=$PATH) /t$ $re tim "./dan -n50 <dat>/n" "./rel -n50 <dat>/n" 225.5 +- 1.2 μs (AlreadySubtracted)Overhead 4177 +- 15 μs ./dan -n50 <dat>/n 4302 +- 17 μs ./rel -n50 <dat>/n /t$ a (4302 +- 17)/(4177 +- 15) 1.0299 +- 0.0055 /t$ a 299./55 5.43636... # kurtosis=>5.4 sigmas is not so significant Of course, as per my first sentence, the best benchmarks are your own applications run against your own data and its idiosyncratic distributions. EDIT: btw, /t -> /tmp which is a /dev/shm bind mount while /n -> /dev/null.