Re: C++ vs C when it comes to speed...
mast2as@yahoo.com wrote:
I am sure this topic has been discussed a thousand times and I read a
few things about it today on the net. I also want to say I am trying
to start a polemic here, I am just curious and willint to learn and
improve the way I am approaching some coding issues that I have at the
moment. I use C++ programming for my work, but I am not a developper
so please be patient & tolerant in your answers ;-)
Okay for the last few days I have been struggling with mixing some C
and C++ code. I usually try to make my code C++ all the way through.
Recently because I had to implement some old C specs I decided for
some weird reasons to mix C and C++ code. Not a good thing to do I
know. Anyway I really struggled with the idea for the last few days
and spend quite some time going back & fort different versions of the
code, some had more C than C++, some where only C++. I must say that
in what I am doing, execution SPEED is important.
So today I decided to do this very simple test. I wrote the same
functionalities but one version is C++ the other C and run these
functions in a loop (10 000 times).
The C++ versions takes 5 seconds
The C version takes 1 second to execute
This a big difference. I realised that the difference is mostly coming
in the push_back function of the std::vector class. If I comment that
line out, the C++ code runs in 1 second. I used to find the STL lib
very very convenient but I never realised they had such an impact of
the application performances. Here is the program that I used for the
test... Maybe I am doing something wrong so I apologize in advance.
As I said in the pre-ambule of the post, I am trying to be
constructive. The feedbacks I would like to have are more:
1/ i am doing something wrong in the C++ implementation that would
slow it down.
2/ is it a good thing to do to use C coding in a C++ app if speed is
an issue and I want the app to run as fast as it could.
Thanks everyone.
// 1. comparing speed C vs C++
// Running on Max OS X, Power PC G4, 1.5 Ghz
// c++ -o ribparser ribparser.cpp
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <fstream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <ctime>
class RibParser
{
std::string m_ribFile;
public:
std::ifstream ifs;
RibParser( std::string ribFile ) : m_ribFile( ribFile )
{
char rixm[512];
try
{
ifs.open( ribFile.c_str() );
if ( ifs.fail() )
{
sprintf( rixm, "%s: Can't open\n", ribFile.c_str() );
throw( rixm );
}
}
catch( char *rixm )
{
printf( rixm );
ifs.close();
exit( 0 );
}
int ch;
std::vector<char> token;
while( ! ifs.eof() )
{
ch = ifs.get();
// comment this line out and the app runs in 1 second
token.push_back( ch );
}
}
~RibParser()
{
ifs.close();
}
};
static const size_t ARRAY_INCR = 8;
void RibParserC( const char *ribFile )
{
char *token;
size_t tokenByteSize = 0;
size_t tokenArraySize = ARRAY_INCR;
FILE *source;
if ( ( source = fopen( ribFile, "r" ) ) == NULL )
{
printf( "%s: Can't open\n", ribFile );
fclose( source );
exit( 0 );
}
token = (char*)malloc( ARRAY_INCR );
int ch;
do
{
ch = fgetc( source );
token[tokenByteSize] = ch;
tokenByteSize++;
if ( ( tokenByteSize % tokenArraySize ) == 0 )
{
token = (char*)realloc( token, tokenArraySize + ARRAY_INCR );
tokenArraySize += ARRAY_INCR;
}
} while ( ch != EOF );
fclose( source );
free( token );
}
int main( int argc, char ** argv )
{
time_t start, end;
time( &start );
for ( size_t i = 0; i < 10000; ++i )
{
RibParser ribParser( "/Users/jean-colas/Desktop/comment.rib" );
}
time( &end );
double diff = difftime( end, start );
printf( "seconds %f %d\n", diff, CLOCKS_PER_SEC );
time( &start );
for ( size_t i = 0; i < 10000; ++i )
{
RibParserC( "/Users/jean-colas/Desktop/comment.rib" );
}
time( &end );
diff = difftime( end, start );
printf( "seconds %f %d\n", diff, CLOCKS_PER_SEC );
return 0;
}
/////
I couldn't reproduce your results because I didn't have
"/Users/jean-colas/Desktop/comment.rib". So instead I used a 50KB chunk
of random data from /dev/urandom.
Results:
seconds 28.000000 1000000
seconds 26.000000 1000000
After turning on optimization (g++ -O3 -o ribparser ribparser.cpp):
seconds 17.000000 1000000
seconds 23.000000 1000000
So I would claim that your implementations are competitive, at least
given the input I provided.
I have some guesses as to why you are seeing what you are seeing. A
function call:
token.push_back( ch );
has a much larger overhead than an assignment:
token[tokenByteSize] = ch;
A good compiler will probably get rid of most/all of that overhead when
you turn on optimizations.
Another observation is that your C implementation potentially has
quadratic time (depending on how realloc is implemented), while your C++
implementation has linear time. On a large enough input, I would expect
the C++ version to pull far ahead. This has nothing to do with the
language itself, though, but rather the quality of the algorithm you use.
--
Alan Johnson