[robert3005]

Negated operators share kernels. NotEq, Gte and Lte are the inverse of Eq, Lt and Gt, so each pair now uses one set of kernels. When the operator is a negation, stream_compare_fused inverts each 1024-bit output block right after the transpose, while the block is still in cache. This adds 16 word NOTs for each 1024 values. between passes negate = false.

Signed types use the unsigned kernels. Bit-packing rejects negative integers (ensure_non_negative_integers), so packed values of a signed type are never negative.

• A negative constant compares the same against every packed value as against zero, so the result is constant. It is handled before the fused kernel.
• Otherwise both sides are non-negative, and the unsigned physical values compare the same as the signed values. The fused kernel now takes function items of the physical type (<T as PhysicalPType>::Physical::is_lt and so on), so signed and unsigned arrays of one width share one set of kernels.

Patches and width 0 still use the exact predicate on the logical type.

vortex-fastlanes release __text (macOS arm64)	bytes
develop	4,442,156
negated operators share kernels	3,279,596
+ signed types use unsigned kernels	2,846,252 (-1.60 MB, -36%)

[robert3005]

this is the added work of this pr

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will regress 2 benchmarks

4 warnings, 1 note

⚠️ Walltime results may be unreliable

Some benchmarks used the Walltime instrument outside CodSpeed Macro Runners, which can make the results inconsistent.

Learn more about Macro Runners

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ Unable to measure the execution of 2 benchmarks

These benchmarks measured no execution time, so their results are not comparable and count as unchanged. This usually happens when the compiler removes the code under test.

Prevent compiler optimizations

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ 17 benchmarks are dominated by system calls

System calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ Base and head ran on different runner types

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runner types, so the changes might not come from the code. Run base and head on the same runner type, or use CodSpeed Macro Runners for more stable results.

Learn more about Macro Runners

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

ℹ️ 40 benchmarks have no flamegraph

The flamegraph wasn't generated: the symbols of the profiling trace could not be resolved, because no information about the language frames was collected.

See affected benchmarks

⚡ 24 improved benchmarks
❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2413 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 12 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	CPU Simulation	bench_compare_sliced_dict_primitive[(3333, 10000)]	32.9 µs	71 µs	-53.63%
❌	CPU Simulation	filter_powerlaw_by_random[250000]	131.3 µs	174.3 µs	-24.66%
⚡	CPU Simulation	chunked_dict_primitive_canonical_into[f64, (1000, 1000, 10)]	203.3 µs	149.4 µs	+36.07%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[33]	503.3 µs	446.1 µs	+12.82%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[34]	504.3 µs	447.8 µs	+12.62%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[36]	512.5 µs	456.3 µs	+12.31%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[35]	518.3 µs	461.9 µs	+12.2%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[31]	482 µs	429.9 µs	+12.1%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[30]	466 µs	416.2 µs	+11.98%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[29]	462.1 µs	413.1 µs	+11.86%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[28]	436.7 µs	390.7 µs	+11.77%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[38]	535.6 µs	479.6 µs	+11.67%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[37]	532.7 µs	478.2 µs	+11.4%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[39]	550.2 µs	494.6 µs	+11.24%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[27]	440.5 µs	396.9 µs	+10.99%
⚡	CPU Simulation	decompress[u16, (4000, 256)]	62.5 µs	56.3 µs	+10.98%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[26]	425.6 µs	383.8 µs	+10.89%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[42]	567.1 µs	511.7 µs	+10.84%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[25]	421.8 µs	380.7 µs	+10.78%
⚡	CPU Simulation	compare[44]	575.4 µs	520.3 µs	+10.59%
...	...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing rk/size-fastlanes-compare-negate (47f9018) with develop (76d8371)}

Footnotes

1. 12 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[connortsui20]

wow compilers