[buybackoff]

For working with arrays elements without bound checks, this is the modern alternative to pointers, without object pinning for GC and "unsafe" keyword: MemoryMarshal. GetArrayDataReference<T>(T[]). This is still totally unsafe, but is "modern safer unsafe" that works with `ref`s and makes friends with System.Runtime.CompileServices.Unfafe.

Funny point: the verbosity of this method and SRCS.Unsafe ones make them look slower vs pointers at subconscious level for me, but they are as fast if not faster to juggle with knifes in C#.

The `fixed` keyword is mostly for fast transient pinning of data. Raw pointers from `fixed` remain handy in some cases, e.g. for alignment when working with AVX, but even this can be done with `ref`s, which can reference an already pinned array from Pinned Object Heap or native memory. Most APIs accept `ref`s and GC continues tracking underlying objects.

See the subtle difference here for common misuse of fixed to get array data pointer: https://sharplab.io/#v2:C4LghgzgtgPgAgJgIwFgBQcDMACR2DC2A3ut...

Spans are great, but sometimes raw `ref`s are a better fit for a task, to get the last bits of performance.

[bengarney]

I increasingly wonder if writing and binding performance critical things in C/C++ would be less overall effort. Performant zero-alloc C# vs C/C++ is backdoor magic vs first class language support. Boxing gloves vs. surgical gloves.

C# _can_ do this! But I face many abstractions: special perf APIs, C#, IL, asm. Outcomes will vary with language version, runtime version, platform, IL2CPP/Burst/Mono/dotnet. But C/C++ has one layer of abstraction (the compiler), and it's locked in once I compile it.

I want to do the thing as exactly and consistently as possible in the simplest way possible!

A build environment that compiles .cpp alongside .cs (no automatic bindings, just compilation) would be so nice for this.

----

Example of what I mean regarding abstractions:

  void addBatch(int *a, int *b, int count)
  {
    for(int i=0; i<count; i++) 
      a[i] += b[i]; 
  }

versus:

    [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveOptimization)]
    public static void AddBatch(int[] a, int[] b, int count)
    {
        ref int ra = ref MemoryMarshal.GetArrayDataReference(a);
        ref int rb = ref MemoryMarshal.GetArrayDataReference(b);
        for (nint i = 0, n = (nint)count; i < n; i++)
            Unsafe.Add(ref ra, i) += Unsafe.Add(ref rb, i);
    }

(This is obviously a contrived example, my point is to show the kinds of idioms at play.)

[int_19h]

But your first code snippet is also valid C# if you just throw in `unsafe` there. And, generally speaking, everything that you can do in C (not C++) can be done in C# with roughly the same verbosity.

[bengarney]

It is, but it isn't quite the same as C, either. That is to say, there is some semi-unknowable stack of stuff happening under the covers.

I will predict the future: you will pull up the JIT assembly output to make the case that they output similarly performant assembly on your preferred platform, and that you just have to do X to make sure that the code behaves that way.

But my problem is that we are invoking the JIT in the conversation at all. The mental model for any code like this inevitably involves a big complex set of interacting systems and assumptions. Failure to respect them results in crashes or unexpected performance roadblocks.

[int_19h]

I don't see what makes JIT any different from AOT in this case. But C# can be AOT-compiled as well.

Will it be as efficient? Probably not; C++ compilers have been in the optimization game for a very long time and have gotten crazy good at it. Not to mention that the language itself is defined in a way that essentially mandates a highly optimizing compiler to get decent performance out of it (and avoid unnecessary creation of temporaries and lots of calls to very tiny functions), which then puts pressure on implementations.

But my point is that this is not a question of language, but implementation. Again, your C example is literally, token-for-token, valid C# as well. And, in general, you can take any random C program and mechanically convert it to C# with the exact same semantics and mostly the same look (with minor variations like the need to use stackalloc for local arrays). So if it's all 1:1, equivalent perf is certainly achievable, and indeed I'd expect a C# AOT compiler to do exactly the same thing as the C compiler here, especially if both are using the same backend; e.g. LLVM.

Now in practice the implementations are what they are, and so even if you are writing C# code "C-style", it's likely to be marginally slower because optimizer is not as good. But the question then becomes whether it's "good enough", and in many cases the answer is "yes" - by writing low-level C# you already get the 90% perf boost compared to high-level code, and rewriting that in C so that it can be compiled with a more optimizing compiler will net you maybe 10% for a lot more effort needed to then integrate the pieces.

[buybackoff]

I use an extension for arrays, something like:

    internal static class ArrayExtensions
    {
        [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
        public static ref T RefAtUnsafe<T>(this T[] array, nint index)
        {
    #if DEBUG
            return ref array[index];
    #else
            Debug.Assert((uint)index < array.Length, "RefAtUnsafe: (uint)index < array.Length");
            return ref Unsafe.Add(ref MemoryMarshal.GetArrayDataReference(array), (nuint)index);
    #endif
        }
    }

then your example turns into:

    public static void AddBatch(int[] a, int[] b, int count)
    {
        // Storing a reference is often more expensive that re-taking it in a loop, requires benchmarking
        for (nint i = 0; i < (uint)count; i++)
            a.RefAtUnsafe(i) += b.RefAtUnsafe(i);
    }

The JITted assembly: https://sharplab.io/#v2:EYLgxg9gTgpgtADwGwBYA0AXEBDAzgWwB8AB...

I'm convinced C# is so much better for high perf code, because yes it can do everything (including easy-to-use x-arch SIMD), but it lets one not bother about things that do not matter and use safe code. It's so pragmatic.

See also the top comments from a recent thread, I totally agree. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45253012

BTW, do not use [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveOptimization)], it disables TieredPGO, which is a huge thing for latest .NET versions.

[bengarney]

The world falls into two categories for me. "Must be fast" and "I don't care (much)". C/C++ is ideal for the first one, and C# is awesome for the second.

My argument isn't that C# is bad or performance is unachievable. It's that the mental overhead to write something that has consistent, high performance in C/C++ is very low. In other words, for the amount of mental effort, knowledge, and iteration it takes to write something fast + maintainable in C#, would I be better served by just writing it in C/C++?

The linked assembly is almost certainly non-optimal; compare to -O3 of the C version: https://godbolt.org/z/f5qKhrq1G - I automatically get SIMD usage and many other optimizations.

You can certainly make the argument that if X, Y, Z is done, your thing would be fast/faster. But that's exactly my argument. I don't want to do X, Y, Z to get good results if I don't have to (`return ref Unsafe.Add(ref MemoryMarshal.GetArrayDataReference(array), (nuint)index);` and using/not using `[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveOptimization)]` are non-trivial mental overhead!).

I want to write `foo.bar` and get good, alloc free, optimized results... and more importantly, results that behave the same everywhere I deploy them, not dependent on language version, JIT specifics, etc.

If I was operating in a domain where I could not ever take the C/C++ path, these features of C# are of course very welcome. And in general more power/expressiveness is very good. But circling back, I wonder if my energy is better spent doing a C version than contorting C# to do what I want.

[buybackoff]

It just looks like you are much more fluent in C/C++ than in C#.

[EgorBo]

"moder safer unsafe". It's actually quite the opposite most of the time, void* is safer as it's often doesn't involve GC. I recommend reading https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/unsafe-cod...

[buybackoff]

I have mostly GC holes in mind when say "safer". Or heap fragmentation, even if it's POH