So my question is why is let _ = this
faster then this != nil
?
Example:
This is:
let this : Bool? = true //
let start = DispatchTime.now()
for _ in 0...100000000 {
guard this != nil else { continue }
}
let end = DispatchTime.now()
let nanoTime = end.uptimeNanoseconds - start.uptimeNanoseconds
let timeInterval = Double(nanoTime)
print("Time \(timeInterval)")
// Time 5426559135.0
// Time 5428084767.0
// Time 5327325459.0
Slower than:
let this : Bool? = true //
let start = DispatchTime.now()
for _ in 0...100000000 {
guard let _ = this else { continue }
}
let end = DispatchTime.now()
let nanoTime = end.uptimeNanoseconds - start.uptimeNanoseconds
let timeInterval = Double(nanoTime)
print("Time \(timeInterval)")
// Time 257045414.0
// Time 261933863.0
// Time 263465919.0
Following Jonathan's response I checked the actual disassembled instructions. Here is the result: For the code:
let this : Bool? = nil
this != nil
we get:
0x100001290 <+0>: pushq %rbp
0x100001291 <+1>: movq %rsp, %rbp
0x100001294 <+4>: subq $0x30, %rsp
0x100001298 <+8>: leaq 0x2c7259(%rip), %rdx ; type metadata for Swift.Bool
0x10000129f <+15>: leaq 0x2b66ca(%rip), %rcx ; protocol witness table for Swift.Bool : Swift.Equatable in Swift
0x1000012a6 <+22>: leaq -0x18(%rbp), %rax
0x1000012aa <+26>: leaq -0x8(%rbp), %r8
0x1000012ae <+30>: movb $0x2, 0x2f940b(%rip)
0x1000012b5 <+37>: movb 0x2f9404(%rip), %r9b ; test2.this : Swift.Optional<Swift.Bool>
0x1000012bc <+44>: movb %r9b, -0x8(%rbp)
0x1000012c0 <+48>: movb $0x2, -0x10(%rbp)
0x1000012c4 <+52>: movb -0x10(%rbp), %r9b
0x1000012c8 <+56>: movb %r9b, -0x18(%rbp)
0x1000012cc <+60>: movl %edi, -0x1c(%rbp)
0x1000012cf <+63>: movq %r8, %rdi
0x1000012d2 <+66>: movq %rsi, -0x28(%rbp)
0x1000012d6 <+70>: movq %rax, %rsi
0x1000012d9 <+73>: callq 0x10004df10 ; Swift.!= infix <A where A: Swift.Equatable> (Swift.Optional<A>, Swift.Optional<A>) -> Swift.Bool
0x1000012de <+78>: xorl %r10d, %r10d
0x1000012e1 <+81>: movb %al, -0x29(%rbp)
0x1000012e4 <+84>: movl %r10d, %eax
0x1000012e7 <+87>: addq $0x30, %rsp
0x1000012eb <+91>: popq %rbp
0x1000012ec <+92>: retq
and for:
let this : Bool? = nil
let _ = this
there is:
0x1000012d0 <+0>: pushq %rbp
0x1000012d1 <+1>: movq %rsp, %rbp
0x1000012d4 <+4>: xorl %eax, %eax
0x1000012d6 <+6>: movb $0x2, 0x2f93e3(%rip)
0x1000012dd <+13>: movl %edi, -0x4(%rbp)
0x1000012e0 <+16>: movq %rsi, -0x10(%rbp)
0x1000012e4 <+20>: popq %rbp
0x1000012e5 <+21>: retq
Also, thank you Code Different for pointing to the Optimisation level.
Changing the value from [-Onone] to [-O -whole-module-optimisation] will cause a change for the generated asm in the following way:
The
let this : Bool? = nil
let _ = this
has
0x100001490 <+0>: pushq %rbp
0x100001491 <+1>: movq %rsp, %rbp
0x100001494 <+4>: movb $0x2, 0x3d9595(%rip) ; gCRAnnotations + 63
0x10000149b <+11>: xorl %eax, %eax
0x10000149d <+13>: popq %rbp
0x10000149e <+14>: retq
and the
let this : Bool? = nil
this != nil
to
0x100001490 <+0>: pushq %rbp
0x100001491 <+1>: movq %rsp, %rbp
0x100001494 <+4>: movb $0x2, 0x3d9595(%rip) ; gCRAnnotations + 63
0x10000149b <+11>: xorl %eax, %eax
0x10000149d <+13>: popq %rbp
0x10000149e <+14>: retq
So the resulted instructions are actually the same and the time to execute them should be pretty close.
I would check out this post. They both result in the same underlying assembly instructions. My guess is that they both take such a small amount of time to compile that the time difference you're noticing could be due to other miscellaneous outliers affecting performance.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With