[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Add benchmarks for copy algorithms (PR #127328)

[Louis Dionne via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+// UNSUPPORTED: c++03, c++11, c++14, c++17
+
+#include <algorithm>
+#include <deque>
+#include <iterator>
+#include <list>
+#include <string>
+#include <vector>
+
+#include "benchmark/benchmark.h"
+#include "../../GenerateInput.h"
+#include "test_macros.h"
+
+template <class Container, class Operation>
+void bm_general(std::string operation_name, Operation copy) {
+  auto bench = [copy](auto& st) {
+    auto const size = st.range(0);
+    using ValueType = typename Container::value_type;
+    Container c;
+    std::generate_n(std::back_inserter(c), size, [] { return Generate<ValueType>::random(); });
+
+    std::vector<ValueType> out(size);
+
+    for ([[maybe_unused]] auto _ : st) {
+      auto result = copy(c.begin(), c.end(), out.begin());
+      benchmark::DoNotOptimize(result);
+      benchmark::DoNotOptimize(out);
+      benchmark::DoNotOptimize(c);
+      benchmark::ClobberMemory();
+    }
+  };
+  benchmark::RegisterBenchmark(operation_name, bench)->Range(8, 1 << 20);
+}
+
+template <bool Aligned, class Operation>
+static void bm_vector_bool(std::string operation_name, Operation copy) {
+  auto bench = [copy](auto& st) {
+    auto n = st.range();
+    std::vector<bool> in(n, true);
+    std::vector<bool> out(Aligned ? n : n + 8);
+    benchmark::DoNotOptimize(&in);
+    auto first = in.begin();
+    auto last  = in.end();
+    auto dst   = Aligned ? out.begin() : out.begin() + 4;
+    for ([[maybe_unused]] auto _ : st) {
+      auto result = copy(first, last, dst);
+      benchmark::DoNotOptimize(result);
+      benchmark::DoNotOptimize(out);
+      benchmark::ClobberMemory();
+    }
+  };
+  benchmark::RegisterBenchmark(operation_name, bench)->Range(64, 1 << 20);
+}
+
+int main(int argc, char** argv) {
+  auto std_copy    = [](auto first, auto last, auto out) { return std::copy(first, last, out); };
+  auto ranges_copy = [](auto first, auto last, auto out) { return std::ranges::copy(first, last, out); };
+
+  // std::copy
+  bm_general<std::vector<int>>("std::copy(vector<int>)", std_copy);
+  bm_general<std::deque<int>>("std::copy(deque<int>)", std_copy);
+  bm_general<std::list<int>>("std::copy(list<int>)", std_copy);
+  bm_vector_bool<true>("std::copy(vector<bool>) (aligned)", std_copy);
+  bm_vector_bool<false>("std::copy(vector<bool>) (unaligned)", std_copy);
+
+  // ranges::copy
+  bm_general<std::vector<int>>("ranges::copy(vector<int>)", ranges_copy);
+  bm_general<std::deque<int>>("ranges::copy(deque<int>)", ranges_copy);
+  bm_general<std::list<int>>("ranges::copy(list<int>)", ranges_copy);
+#if TEST_STD_VER >= 23 // vector<bool>::iterator is not an output_iterator before C++23
+  bm_vector_bool<true>("ranges::copy(vector<bool>) (aligned)", ranges_copy);
+  bm_vector_bool<false>("ranges::copy(vector<bool>) (unaligned)", ranges_copy);
+#endif
+
+  benchmark::Initialize(&argc, argv);
+  benchmark::RunSpecifiedBenchmarks();
+  benchmark::Shutdown();
----------------
ldionne wrote:

The problem with the `template_args` approach is that we need to change the name of the benchmark based on those arguments. We want the benchmarks to be named `std::copy(vector<int>)`, `ranges::copy(deque<int>)`, etc.. This really improves the benchmark output.

IIUC, you'd like some way to loop over the different containers we're using to define the benchmarks? To achieve this while keeping the current properties (short and different names for each, different ranges for containers and for `vector<bool>`), I don't see a way to do that without involving some fairly heavy Hana-style metaprogramming. Can be done, but I don't think it would be a net win in readability. Let's discuss this more in our upcoming 1:1.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127328