Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

feat(p/int256): Optimize int256 with two's complement implementation #2846

Open
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat(p/int256): Optimize int256 with two's complement implementation #2846

wants to merge 15 commits into from

Conversation

notJoon
Copy link
Member

@notJoon notJoon commented Sep 25, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

This PR optimizes the implementation of int256 type. Key changes include:

  • Changed from storing sign and value separately in the Int256 struct to an implementation using two's complement method.
  • This reduces unnecessary operations and improves overall performance.

Performance Result

  • Basic arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, etc.): About 3x performance improvement (based on Go benchmarks, may differ slightly in gno)
  • Division operations: Up to 5x performance decrease compared to the previous implementation (can be improved by directly manipulating array fields, but not applied to avoid duplication with p/demo/uint256)

Additional improvements:

  • Increased test coverage to 95%.

This change is expected to improve performance for most int256 operations. However, please note the performance degradation in division operations.

See Also

#2750 (review)

Contributors' checklist...
  • Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
  • Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
  • Updated the official documentation or not needed
  • No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
  • Added references to related issues and PRs
  • Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
  • Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the 🧾 package/realm Tag used for new Realms or Packages. label Sep 25, 2024
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 25, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 63.54%. Comparing base (d03581e) to head (b10e8d9).

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2846      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   63.37%   63.54%   +0.16%     
==========================================
  Files         566      566              
  Lines       79490    79605     +115     
==========================================
+ Hits        50374    50582     +208     
+ Misses      25727    25636      -91     
+ Partials     3389     3387       -2
Flag Coverage Δ
contribs/gnodev 60.57% <ø> (ø)
contribs/gnofaucet 14.82% <ø> (ø)
gno.land 67.37% <ø> (ø)
gnovm 67.87% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@notJoon notJoon marked this pull request as ready for review September 26, 2024 09:19
@notJoon notJoon requested review from a team as code owners September 26, 2024 09:19
@notJoon notJoon requested review from gfanton and petar-dambovaliev and removed request for a team September 26, 2024 09:19
@Kouteki Kouteki added review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review and removed review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review labels Oct 3, 2024
@notJoon notJoon mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2024
Merged
7 tasks
@dongwon8247 dongwon8247 mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2024
Open
thehowl
thehowl approved these changes Oct 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@thehowl thehowl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

great stuff

examples/gno.land/p/demo/int256/arithmetic.gno Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/gno.land/p/demo/int256/arithmetic_test.gno Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/gno.land/p/demo/int256/bitwise_test.gno Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
thehowl
thehowl reviewed Oct 28, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@thehowl thehowl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few more comments, apologies

examples/gno.land/p/demo/int256/arithmetic_test.gno Outdated
@@ -192,7 +195,9 @@ func TestSub(t *testing.T) {
{"-1", "-1", "0"},
{"-115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935", "-115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935", "0"},
{"-115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935", "0", "-115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935"},
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I get why this test works, but it's weird. Can we change the test so that instead of parsing also the want, we simply compare the string? So we verify if it's the "canonical" representation?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This goes for other tests as well

examples/gno.land/p/demo/int256/conversion.gno Outdated
// OBS, differs from original mempooler int256
// ToString returns the decimal representation of z.
// ToString returns a string representation of z in base 10.
// The string is prefixed with a minus sign if z is negative.
func (z *Int) ToString() string {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could this not just be String(), actually?

examples/gno.land/p/demo/int256/arithmetic_test.gno
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For these tests in general, can we keep the string constants of very large numbers out?

Ideally, these should be through math/big, so that can programmatically verify them, but it doesn't exist yet, so let's just have them as descriptive constants.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@thehowl thehowl thehowl approved these changes

@petar-dambovaliev petar-dambovaliev petar-dambovaliev left review comments

@gfanton gfanton Awaiting requested review from gfanton gfanton was automatically assigned from gnolang/tech-staff

Assignees

@notJoon notJoon

Labels
🧾 package/realm Tag used for new Realms or Packages.
Projects
💪 Bounties & Worx
Status: In Progress
🤝🏻 Partner: Onbloc
Status: In Review
🧙‍♂️gno.land core team
Status: In Review
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@notJoon @thehowl @petar-dambovaliev @Kouteki