Efficient index bound check and double to int cast - c++

Question

Consider the following code snippet
double *x, *id;
int i, n; // = vector size
// allocate and zero x
// set id to 0:n-1
for(i=0; i<n; i++) {
long iid = (long)id[i];
if(iid>=0 && iid<n && (double)iid==id[i]){
x[iid] = 1;
} else break;
}
The code uses values in vector id of type double as indices into vector x. In order for the indices to be valid I verify that they are greater than or equal to 0, less than vector size n, and that doubles stored in id are in fact integers. In this example id stores integers from 1 to n, so all vectors are accessed linearly and branch prediction of the if statement should always work.
For n=1e8 the code takes 0.21s on my computer. Since it seems to me it is a computationally light-weight loop, I expect it to be memory bandwidth bounded. Based on the benchmarked memory bandwidth I expect it to run in 0.15s. I calculate the memory footprint as 8 bytes per id value, and 16 bytes per x value (it needs to be both written, and read from memory since I assume SSE streaming is not used). So a total of 24 bytes per vector entry.
The questions:
Am I wrong saying that this code should be memory bandwidth bounded, and that it can be improved?
If not, do you know a way in which I could improve the performance so that it works with the speed of the memory?
Or maybe everything is fine and I can not easily improve it otherwise than running it in parallel?
Changing the type of id is not an option - it must be double. Also, in the general case id and x have different sizes and must be kept as separate arrays - they come from different parts of the program. In short, I wonder if it is possible to write the bound checks and the type cast/integer validation in a more efficient manner.
For convenience, the entire code:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
static struct timeval tb, te;
void tic()
{
gettimeofday(&tb, NULL);
}
void toc(const char *idtxt)
{
long s,u;
gettimeofday(&te, NULL);
s=te.tv_sec-tb.tv_sec;
u=te.tv_usec-tb.tv_usec;
printf("%-30s%10li.%.6li\n", idtxt,
(s*1000000+u)/1000000, (s*1000000+u)%1000000);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
double *x = NULL;
double *id = NULL;
int i, n;
// vector size is a command line parameter
n = atoi(argv[1]);
printf("x size %i\n", n);
// not included in timing in MATLAB
x = calloc(sizeof(double),n);
memset(x, 0, sizeof(double)*n);
// create index vector
tic();
id = malloc(sizeof(double)*n);
for(i=0; i<n; i++) id[i] = i;
toc("id = 1:n");
// use id to index x and set all entries to 4
tic();
for(i=0; i<n; i++) {
long iid = (long)id[i];
if(iid>=0 && iid<n && (double)iid==id[i]){
x[iid] = 1;
} else break;
}
toc("x(id) = 1");
}

Answer 1

EDIT: Disregard if you can't split the arrays!
I think it can be improved by taking advantage of a common cache concept. You can either make data accesses close in time or location. With tight for-loops, you can achieve a better data hit-rate by shaping your data structures like your for-loop. In this case, you access two different arrays, usually the same indices in each array. Your machine is loading chunks of both arrays each iteration through that loop. To increase the use of each load, create a structure to hold an element of each array, and create a single array with that struct:
struct my_arrays
{
double x;
int id;
};
struct my_arrays* arr = malloc(sizeof(my_arrays)*n);
Now, each time you load data into cache, you'll hit everything you load because the arrays are close together.
EDIT: Since your intent is to check for an integer value, and you make the explicit assumption that the values are small enough to be represented precisely in a double with no loss of precision, then I think your comparison is fine.
My previous answer had a reference to beware comparing large doubles after implicit casting, and I referenced this:
What is the most effective way for float and double comparison?

Answer 2

It might be worth considering examination of double type representation.
For example, the following code shows how to compare a double number greater than 1 to 999:
bool check(double x)
{
union
{
double d;
uint32_t y[2];
};
d = x;
bool answer;
uint32_t exp = (y[1] >> 20) & 0x3ff;
uint32_t fraction1 = y[1] << (13 + exp); // upper bits of fractiona part
uint32_t fraction2 = y[0]; // lower 32 bits of fractional part
if (fraction2 != 0 || fraction1 != 0)
answer = false;
else if (exp > 8)
answer = false;
else if (exp == 8)
answer = (y[1] < 0x408f3800); // this is the representation of 999
else
answer = true;
return answer;
}
This looks like much code, but it might be vectorized easily (using e.g. SSE), and if your bound is a power of 2, it might simplify the code further.