|
|
|
|
|
|
by lunaticd
762 days ago
|
|
|
julia> @code_typed hamming_distance(Int8(33), Int8(125))
CodeInfo(
1 ─ %1 = Base.xor_int(x1, x2)::Int8
│ %2 = Base.ctpop_int(%1)::Int8
│ %3 = Base.sext_int(Int64, %2)::Int64
│ nothing::Nothing
└── return %3
) => Int64 julia> @code_llvm hamming_distance(Int8(33), Int8(125))
; Function Signature: hamming_distance(Int8, Int8)
; @ /Users/lunaticd/code/tiny-binary-rag/rag.jl:13 within `hamming_distance`
define i64 @julia_hamming_distance_16366(i8 signext %"x1::Int8", i8 signext %"x2::Int8") #0 {
top:
; @ /Users/lunaticd/code/tiny-binary-rag/rag.jl:14 within `hamming_distance`
; ┌ @ int.jl:373 within `xor`
%0 = xor i8 %"x2::Int8", %"x1::Int8"
; └
; ┌ @ int.jl:415 within `count_ones`
%1 = call i8 @llvm.ctpop.i8(i8 %0)
; │┌ @ int.jl:549 within `rem`
%2 = zext i8 %1 to i64
; └└
ret i64 %2
} it lowers to the machine instruction now. I also tried 8 Int64s vs 64 Int8s and it doesn't seem to make a difference when doing the search. EDIT: apologize for the formatting |
|
|