GDAL offers a method ComputeStatistics() that given a raster band returns the minimum and maximum values of pixels, the mean value and the standard deviation.
For those not remembering how to compute mean and standard deviations, the basic formulas for values indexed from 0 to N-1 are :
For those not remembering how to compute mean and standard deviations, the basic formulas for values indexed from 0 to N-1 are :
mean = sum(value(i) for i = 0 to N-1) / N
std_dev = square root of the mean of the square of the differences of values to the mean
std_dev = sqrt(sum(i = 0 to N-1, (value(i) - mean)^2)) / N)
A very naive version would first compute the mean, and in a second pass compute the standard deviation.
std_dev = sqrt(sum(i = 0 to N-1, value(i)^2)/N - mean^2)
std_dev = sqrt(mean_of_square_values - square_of_mean)
std_dev = sqrt(sum(i = 0 to N-1, value(i)^2)/N - (sum_of_values/N)^2)
std_dev = sqrt(N^2 *(sum(i = 0 to N-1, value(i)^2)/N - (sum_of_values/N)^2)) / N
std_dev = sqrt(N * sum_of_square_values - sum_of_values^2) / N
A less naive implementation would compute the sum of values and the sum of square values in a single pass. However the standard deviation computed like that might be subject to numeric instability given that even if the result is small, sum_of_square_values and sum_of_values can be very big for a big number of pixels, and thus if represented with floating point numbers, the difference between both terms can be wrong.
Welford algorithm
So in recent GDAL versions, the computation of the mean and standard deviation is done in a progressive and numerically stable way, thanks to the Welford algorithm
The generic code is:
pixel_counter = 0
mean = 0
M2 = 0
foreach(value in all pixels):
if value < minimum or pixel_counter == 0: minimum = value
if value > maximum or pixel_counter == 0: maximum = value
pixel_counter = pixel_counter + 1
delta = value - mean
mean = mean + delta / pixel_counter
M2 = M2 + delta * (value - mean);
std_dev = sqrt( M2 / pixel_counter )
Proof of Welford algorithm
(You can skip this paragraph and still follow the rest of this article)The magic of Welford algorithm lies in the following recurrence relations.
For the mean, it is rather obvious :
N*mean(N) = sum(i = 0 to N-1, value(i))
N*mean(N) = sum(i = 0 to N-2, value(i)) + value(N-1)
N*mean(N) = (N-1) * mean(N-1) + value(N-1)
mean(N) = (N-1)/N * mean(N-1) + value(N-1)/N
mean(N) = mean(N-1) + (value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N
Hence mean = mean + delta / pixel_counter
For the standard deviation, the proof is a little bit more lengthy :
N*stddev(N)^2 = sum(i=0 to N-1, (value(i) - mean(N))^2 )
N*stddev(N)^2 = sum(i=0 to N-1, (value(i) - (mean(N-1) + (value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N))^2 )
N*stddev(N)^2 = sum(i=0 to N-1, ((value(i) - mean(N-1)) - ((value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N))^2 )
N*stddev(N)^2 = sum(i=0 to N-1, (value(i) - mean(N-1))^2 + ((value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N)^2
- 2 * (value(i) - mean(N-1))*((value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N) )
N*stddev(N)^2 = sum(i=0 to N-1, (value(i) - mean(N-1))^2) + N * ((value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N)^2
- 2 * sum(i=0 to N-1, (value(i) - mean(N-1)))*((value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N))
N*stddev(N)^2 = (N-1)*stddev(N-1)^2 + (value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) ^2
+ N * ((value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N)^2
- 2 * sum(i=0 to N-1, (value(i) - mean(N-1)))*((value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N))
N*stddev(N)^2 = (N-1)*stddev(N-1)^2 + (value(N-1) - mean(N-1))^2 * (1 + 1 / N)
- 2 * N( mean(N) - mean(N-1)) *((value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) / N))
N*stddev(N)^2 = (N-1)*stddev(N-1)^2 + (value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) *
((1 + 1 / N) * (value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) - 2 * N( mean(N) - mean(N-1)) / N))
N*stddev(N)^2 = (N-1)*stddev(N-1)^2 + (value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) *
((value(N-1) - mean(N-1) + (value(N-1) - mean(N-1) / N - 2 * N( mean(N) - mean(N-1)) / N))
N*stddev(N)^2 = (N-1)*stddev(N-1)^2 + (value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) *
((value(N-1) - mean(N-1) - (mean(N) - mean(N-1))))
N*stddev(N)^2 = (N-1)*stddev(N-1)^2 + (value(N-1) - mean(N-1)) * (value(N-1) - mean(N))
Hence M2 = M2 + delta * (value - mean)
Integer based computation of standard deviation
The Welford algorithm is good but it involves floating point operations for each pixel to compute the progressive mean and variance. Whereas fundamentally we would need those floating point operations only at the end if using the original formulas, and we could use integer arithmetics for the rest. Another drawback of Welford approach is that it prevents any direct parallelization (there might still be ways to reconcile partial computations, but I have not explored those), whereas if you have a set of pixels, you can conceptually divide it in as many subsets you want, and for each subset compute its local minimum, maximum, sum of values and sum of square values. Merging subsets is then trivial: take the minimum of minimums, maximum of maximums, sums of sum of values and sums of sum of square values.
Let us consider the case of pixels whose type is unsigned byte, ie with values in the range [0,255]. We want to compute
std_dev = sqrt(N * sum_of_square_values - sum_of_values^2) / N
For practical reasons, we want N, sum_of_square_values and sum_of_values to fit on a 64bit unsigned integer (uint64), which is the largest natural integral type that can be easily and efficiently used on today's CPUs. The most limiting factor will be sum_of_square_values. Given that in the worse case, a square value is equal to 255*255, the maximum number of pixels N we can address is (2^64-1) / (255*255) = 283 686 952 306 183, which is large enough to represent a raster of 16 million pixels x 16 million pixels. Good enough.
We know need to be able to multiply two uint64 values and get the result as a uint128, and compute the difference of two uint128 values. The multiplication on Intel/AMD CPUs in 64bit mode natively yields to a 128 bit wide result. It is just that there is no standardized way in C/C++ how to get that result. For GCC compiler in 64 bit mode, the __uint128_t type can be used in a transparent way
to do that :__uint128_t result = (__uint128_t)operand_64bit * other_operand_64bit
For Visual Studio compilers in 64 bit mode, a special instruction _umul128() is available.
What about non-Intel or non-64bit CPUs ? In that case, we have to do the multiplication at hand by decomposing each uint64 values into its lower uint32 and uint32 parts, doing 4 uint32*uint32->uint64 multiplications, summing the intermediary results, handling the carries and building the resulting number. Not very efficient, but we do not really care about that, since it is just a final operation.
To make it is easier, that partial 128 bit arithmetics is abstracted in a GDALUInt128 C++ class that has different implementations regarding the CPU and compiler support.
Now that we have solved the final part of the computation, we can then write
the computation loop as following :minimum = maximum = value[0]
foreach value:
if value < minimum: minimum = value
else if value > maximum: maximum = value
sum = sum + value
sum_square = sum_square + value * value
Can we do better ? A bit of loop unrolling can help :
minimum = maximum = value[0]
foreach value pair (value1, value2):
if value1 < minimum: minimum = value1
else if value1 > maximum: maximum = value1
sum = sum + value1
sum_square = sum_square + value1 * value1
if value < minimum: minimum = value2
else if value > maximum: maximum = value2
sum = sum + value2
sum_square = sum_square + value2 * value2
(deal with potential remaining pixel if odd number of pixels)
If we start with comparing value1 and value2, we can actually save a comparison (resulting in 3 comparisons for each pair of pixel, instead of 4) :
minimum = maximum = value[0]
foreach value pair (value1, value2):
if value1 < value2:
if value1 < minimum: minimum = value1
if value2 > maximum: maximum = value2
else:
if value2 < minimum: minimum = value2
if value1 > maximum: maximum = value1
sum = sum + value1
sum_square = sum_square + value1 * value1
sum = sum + value2
sum_square = sum_square + value2 * value2
(deal with potential remaining pixel if odd number of pixels)
This improvement can already dramatically reduce the computation time from
1m10 to 7s, to compute 50 times the statistics on a 10000 x 10000 pixel raster.
Parallelization with SSE2
We have not yet explored the parallelization of the algorithm. One way to do it would be to use multi-threading, but for Intel-compatible CPU, we can also explore the capabilities of the SIMD (Single Instruction/Multiple Data) instruction set. On 64bit Intel, the SSE2 instruction set, which offers vectorized operations on integers, is guaranteed to be always present. 16 registers (XMM0 to XMM15) are available, each 128 bit wide.
So each register is wide enough to hold 16 packed int8/uint8, 8 packed int16/uint16, 4 packed int32/uint32 or 2 packed int64/uint64, depending on the wished representation. A diverse set of operations are offered and generally operate on the sub-parts of each register independently. For example c=_mm_add_epi8(a,b) will add independently c[i]=a[i]+b[i] for i=0 to 15, and that in just one CPU cycle._mm_add_epi16() will work on packed uint16, etc. To add some salt, not all operators are available for all elementary subtypes however.
Compilers are supposed to be able to automatically vectorize some C code, but in practice they rarely manage to do so for real world code, hence requiring the programmer to use the SIMD instruction set at hand. All major compilers (gcc, clang, Visual Studio C/C++) offer access to the SSE2 instruction set through "intrinsics", which are C inline functions that wrap the corresponding assembly instructions, but while still being C/C++. This allows the compiler to do the register allocation and various other optimizations (such as re-ordering), which is a huge win over coding directly in assembly. The Intel intrinsics guide is a useful resource to find the appropriate intrinsics.
So a temptative vectorized version of our algorithm would be :
v_minimum = vector_of_16_bytes[0]
v_maximum = vector_of_16_bytes[0]
v_sum = vector_of_16_zeros
v_sum_square = vector_of_16_zeros
foreach vector_of_16_bytes v:
v_minimum = vector_minimum(v_minimum, v)
v_maximum = vector_maximum(v_maximum, v)
v_sum = vector_add(v_sum, v)
v_sum_square = vector_sum(v_sum_square, vector_mul(v, v))
minimum = minimum_of_16_values(v_minimum)
maximum = maximum_of_16_values(v_minimum)
sum = sum_of_X??_values(v_sum)
sum_square = sum_of_X??_values(v_sum_square)
(deal with potential remaining pixels if number of pixels is not multiple of 16)
vector_minimum and vector_maximum do exist as _mm_min_epu8 and _mm_max_epu8. But for vector_add, which variant to use _mm_add_epi8, _mm_add_epi16, _mm_add_epi32 or _mm_add_epi64 ? Well, none directly. We want to add uint8 values, but the result cannot fit on a uint8 (255+255=510). The same holds for sum_square. The result of each square multiplication requires at least a uint16, and we want to loop several times, so we need at least a width of uint32 to hold the accumulation. We designed the overall algorithm to be able to handle an accumulator of uint64, but this would decrease the performance of the vectorization if using that in the tigher loop. So we will decompose our loop into one upper loop and and one inner loop. The inner loop will do as many iterations as possible, while still not overflowing a uint32 accumulator. So (2^32-1)/(255*255) = 66051.xxxx iterations. Which we round down to the closest multiple of 16.
So what about v_sum = vector_add(v_sum, v) ?
The first idea would be to extract the 4 lowest order bytes of v, unpack them so that they fit each on a uint32 and then use _mm_add_epi32 to add them in the v_sum accumulator.
v_sum = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum, _mm_unpacklo_epi16(_mm_unpacklo_epi8(v, zero), zero)
_mm_unpacklo_epi8(v, zero) expands the 8 lowest order bytes of v as 8 uint16. And similarly _mm_unpacklo_epi16(v, zero) expands the 4 lowest order uint16 of v as 4 uint32.
And then repeat that with the 3 other groups of 4 bytes :
v_sum = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum, _mm_unpacklo_epi16(_mm_unpacklo_epi8(_mm_shuffle_epi32(v, 1), zero), zero)
v_sum = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum, _mm_unpacklo_epi16(_mm_unpacklo_epi8(_mm_shuffle_epi32(v, 2), zero), zero)
v_sum = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum, _mm_unpacklo_epi16(_mm_unpacklo_epi8(_mm_shuffle_epi32(v, 3), zero), zero)
But we can do better thans to the _mm_sad_epu8 intrinsics. It is designed to "compute the absolute differences of packed unsigned 8-bit integers in a and b, then horizontally sum each consecutive 8 differences to produce two unsigned 16-bit integers, and pack these unsigned 16-bit integers in the low 16 bits of 64-bit elements in dst." If we notice that ABS(x-0) = x when x >= 0, then it does what we want.
v_sum = _mm_add_epi64(v_sum, _mm_sad_epu8(v, zero))
Pedantic note: we can actually use _mm_add_epi32, since there is no risk of overflow : 8 * 66051 * 255 fits on a uint32. The advantage of using _mm_add_epi32 is that as we will use it elsewhere, the compiler can re-order additions to group them in pairs and benefit from their 0.5 throughput.
_mm_sad_epu8() has a relatively high latency (5 cycles), but it is still a big win since it replaces 14 intrinsics of our initial version.
What about the computation of the square value ? There is no mnemonics to directly multiply packed bytes and get the resulting packed uint16 (or even better uint32, since that is the type we want to operate on eventually to be able to do several iterations of our loop!). One approach would be to take the 8 lowest order bytes, un-pack them to uint16, use the _mm_mullo_epi16() intrinsics that does uint16 x uint16->uint16. Then you would take the 4 lowest order uint16 of this intermediate result, un-pack them to uint32 and finally use _mm_add_epi32 to accumulate them in v_sum_square.
v_low = _mm_unpacklo_epi8(v, zero)
v_low_square = _mm_mullo_epi16(v_low, v_low)
v_sum_square = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum_square, _mm_unpacklo_epi16(v_low_square, zero)
Then repeat the operation with the 4 upper order uint16 of the intermediate result.
v_sum_square = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum_square,
_mm_unpacklo_epi16(_mm_shuffle_epi32(v_low_square, 2 | (3 <<2)), zero) )
_mm_shuffle_epi32(v, 2 | (3 <<2) is a trick to replicate the high 64 bits of a XMM register into its low 64 bits. We don't care about the values of the resulting high 64 bits since they will be lost with the later unpack operations.
And then repeat the whole process with the 8 highest order bytes.
v_high = _mm_unpacklo_epi8(_mm_shuffle_epi32(v, 2 | (3 <<2)), zero)
v_high_square = _mm_mullo_epi16(v_high, v_high)
v_sum_square = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum_square, _mm_unpacklo_epi16(v_high_square, zero)
v_sum_square = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum_square,
_mm_unpacklo_epi16(_mm_shuffle_epi32(v_high_square, 2 | (3 <<2)), zero) )
We can actually do much better with the _mm_madd_epi16() mnemonics that "Multiply packed signed 16-bit integers in a and b, producing intermediate signed 32-bit integers. Horizontally add adjacent pairs of intermediate 32-bit integers, and pack the results". This is really close to what we need. We just need to prepare uint16/int16 integers (the sign convention here does not matter since a uint8 zero-extended to 16 bit is both a uint16/int16)
v_low_16bit = _mm_unpacklo_epi8(v, zero)
v_sum_square = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum_square, _mm_madd_epi16(v_low_16bit, v_low_16bit))
v_high_16bit = _mm_unpacklo_epi8(_mm_shuffle_epi32(v, 2 | (3 <<2)), zero)
v_sum_square = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum_square, _mm_madd_epi16(v_high_16bit, v_high_16bit))
The latencies and throughput of _mm_mullo_epi16 and _mm_madd_epi16 are the same, so the second version is clearly a big win.
Use of AVX2
We can tweak performance a bit by doing a 2x loop unrolling, which will enable the compiler to re-order some operations so that those who have a throughput of 0.5 cycle to be consecutive (such as _mm_add_epi32, _mm_unpacklo_epi8) and thus be able to executive 2 of them in a single cycle. When doing so, we can notice that we are operating on a virtual 256 bit register. But 256 bit registers do exist in the AVX2 instruction set, that was introduced in relatively recent hardware (2013 for Intel Haswell). AVX/AVX2 offer the YMM registers, equivalent of XMM registers but on a doubled bit width (the 128 bit low part of a YMM register is its corresponding XMM register). One particularity of the YMM register is that it operates on quite distinct "128 bit lanes", but you can still extract each lane.
The port to AVX2 is quite straightforward :
v = _mm256_load_si256(data + i)
v_sum = _mm256_add_epi32(v_sum, _mm256_sad_epu8(v, zero))
v_low_16bit = _mm256_cvtepu8_epi16(_mm256_extracti128_si256(v, 0));
v_sum_square = _mm256_add_epi32(v_sum_square, _mm256_madd_epi16(v_low_16bit, v_low_16bit))
v_high_16bit = _mm256_cvtepu8_epi16(_mm256_extracti128_si256(v, 1));
v_sum_square = _mm_add_epi32(v_sum_square, _mm_madd_epi16(v_high_16bit, v_high_16bit))
_mm256_extracti128_si256(v,0) extracts the 128 bit lower part of the register,
and _mm256_extracti128_si256(v,1) the 128 bit upper part.
The good news is that we can have a single code base for the SSE2 and AVX2 variants, by using the AVX2 code. In the case of SSE2, we in fact define the _mm256 functions with their corresponding _mm 128bit functions operating on the low and high 128 bit parts. For example:
static inline GDALm256i GDALmm256_add_epi32(GDALm256i r1, GDALm256i r2)
{
GDALm256i reg;
reg.low = _mm_add_epi32(r1.low, r2.low);
reg.high = _mm_add_epi32(r1.high, r2.high);
return reg;
}
The AVX2-with-SSE2 emulation can be found in :
https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/blob/trunk/gdal/gcore/gdal_avx2_emulation.hpp
Thanks to inlining and usual compiler optimizations, this will be equivalent to our hand 2x unrolled version ! The final code is here.
Regarding timings, our SSE2-emulated AVX2 version runs in 1.6s, so roughly a 4x time improvement with respect to the portable optimized C version. On a hardware capable of AVX2, the pure AVX2 version is 15% faster than the SSE2-emulated version. So definitely not enough to justify a dedicated code path, but here as we have a unified one, it comes almost for free. Provided that the code is explicitly compiled to enable AVX2.
Nodata values
Up to now, we have ignored the potential existence of nodata values. When computing statistics, we do not want pixels that match the nodata value to be taken into account in the minimum, maximum, mean or standard deviation.
In the pure C approach, this is easy. Just ignore pixels that match the nodata value:
minimum = maximum = value[0]
foreach value:
if value != nodata:
valid_pixels = valid_pixels + 1
minimum = min(minimum, value)
maximum = max(minimum, value)
sum = sum + value
sum_square = sum_square + value * value
We cannot directly translate that with SSE2/AVX2 mnemonics since the result of the value != nodata test can be different for each of the 32 packed bytes of the (virtual) AVX2 register, and making tests for each components of the vector register would kill performance to a point where it would be worse than the pure C approach !
We can however rewrite the above in a vector friendly way with :
minimum = maximum = first value that is not nodata
neutral_value = minimum (or any value in final [min,max] range that is not nodata)
foreach value:
validity_flag = if (value != nodata) 0xFF else 0
value_potentially_set_to_zero = value & validity_flag
value_potentially_set_to_neutral = (value & validity_flag) | (neutral_value & ~validity_flag)
valid_pixels = valid_pixels + validity_flag / 255
minimum = min(minimum, value_potentially_set_to_neutral)
maximum = max(minimum, value_potentially_set_to_neutral)
sum = sum + value_potentially_set_to_zero
sum_square = sum_square + value_potentially_set_to_zero * value_potentially_set_to_zero
(value & validity_flag) | (neutral_value & ~validity_flag) is a quite common pattern in SIMD code to implement a if/then/else pattern without branches (for classic scalar code, if/then/else branches are more efficient due to the CPU being able to do branch prediction)
The only complication is that there is no SSE2 intrinsics for non-equality testing, so we have to transform that a bit to use equality testing only. And we will also remove the need for division in the loop :
foreach value:
invalidity_flag = if (value == nodata) 0xFF else 0
value_potentially_set_to_zero = value & ~invalidity_flag
value_potentially_set_to_neutral = (value & ~invalidity_flag) | (neutral_value & invalidity_flag)
invalid_pixels_mul_255 = invalid_pixels_mul_255 + invalidity_flag
minimum = min(minimum, value_potentially_set_to_neutral)
maximum = max(minimum, value_potentially_set_to_neutral)
sum = sum + value_potentially_set_to_zero
sum_square = sum_square + value_potentially_set_to_zero * value_potentially_set_to_zero
valid_pixels = total_pixels - invalid_pixels_mul_255 / 255
The computation of invalid_pixels_mul_255 in a vectorized way is the same as
v_sum, using the _mm_sad_epu8() trick. The resulting SSE2 code is :
foreach vector_of_16_bytes v:
v_invalidity_flag = _mm_cmpeq_epi8(v, v_nodata)
v_value_potentially_set_to_zero = _mm_andnot_si128(v_invalidity_flag, v)
v_value_potentially_set_to_neutral = _mm_or_si128(
v_value_potentially_set_to_zero, _mm_and_si128(v_invalidity_flag, v_neutral))
v_invalid_pixels_mul_255 = _mm_add_epi32(invalid_pixels_mul_255,
_mm_sad_epu8(v_invalidity_flag, zero))
[ code for min, max operating on v_value_potentially_set_to_neutral ]
[ code for sum and sum_square operating on v_value_potentially_set_to_zero ]
The transposition to AVX2 is straightforward.
We can notice that this version that takes into account nodata value can only be used once we have hit a pixel that is not the nodata value, to be able to initialize the neutral value.
What about uint16 rasters ?
The same general principles apply. If we still want to limit ourselves to operate with at most uint64 accumulators, given that the maximum square value of a uint16 is 65535*65535, this limits to rasters of 2^64/(65535*65535) ~= 2 billion pixels, which remains acceptable for common use cases.
One oddity of the SSE-2 instruction set is that it includes only a _mm_min_epi16() / _mm_max_epi16() mnemonics, that is to say that operates on signed int16. The _mm_min_epu16() that operates on uint16 has been introduced in the later SSE 4.1 instruction set (that is quite commonly found in not so recent CPUs).
There are tricks to emulate _mm_min_epu16() in pure SSE2 using saturated subtraction and masking :
// if x <= y, then mask bits will be set to 1.
mask = _mm_cmpeq_epi16( _mm_subs_epu16(x, y), zero )
// select bits from x when mask is 1, y otherwise
min(x,y) = _mm_or_si128(_mm_and_si128(mask, x), _mm_andnot_si128(mask, y));
Another way is to shift the unsigned values by -32768, so as to operate on signed 16bit values.
This -32768 shift trick is also necessary since, like for the byte case, we want to still be able to use the _madd_epi16 intrinsics, which operates on signed int16, to compute the sum of square values. One subtelty to observe is that when you operate on 2 consecutive pixels at 0, _mm_madd_epi16 does :
(0 - 32768) * (0 - 32768) + (0 - 32768) * (0 - 32768)
= 1073741824 + 1073741824
= 2147483648 = 2^31
Which actually overflows the range of signed int32 ( [-2^31, 2^31-1] ) ! The good news is that _mm_madd_epi16 does not saturate the result, so it will actually return 0x80000000 as a result. This should normally be interpreted as -2^31 in signed int32 convention, but as we know that the result of _madd_epi16(x,x) is necessary positive values, we can still correctly interpret the result as a uint32 value. This is where you feel lucky that Intel chose two's complement convention for signed integers.
To compute the sum of values, no nice trick equivalent to _mm_sad_epu8. So we just do it the boring way: unpack separately the 64bit low and high part of the value register from uint16 to uint32 and accumulate them with _mm_add_epi32.
Exactly as for the byte case, the uint16 case can be easily transposed to AVX2 or
emulated-AVX2.Conclusion
Conversion between integer and floating-point operations can be costly, so avoiding them as much as possible is a big win (provided that you make sure not to overflow your integer accumulators)
In theory, the gains offered by a SSE2/AVX2 optimized version are at most limited to a factor of with_of_vector_register / with_of_elementary_type, so, for bytes and SSE2, to 16. But often the gain is lesser, so do that only when you have come to an already optimized portable C version (or if the SIMD instruction set includes a dedicated intrinsics that just do what you want)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire