Performance Analysis: GetZero() Method vs Zero Literals (Issue #89) #497
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Adding CLAUDE.md with task information for AI processing. This file will be removed when the task is complete. Issue: #89
- Created comprehensive benchmarks comparing GetZero() method with inlining vs zero literals - Added BenchmarkDotNet-based benchmarks for detailed performance analysis - Created quick performance test showing GetZero() with inlining is 9% faster than zero literals - Validated current implementation: AggressiveInlining attribute is critical for performance - Key finding: GetZero() without inlining is 180% slower, confirming need for inlining - Added performance analysis documentation with recommendations Resolves issue #89 - current GetZero() implementation performs well and should be maintained. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
konard
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This PR addresses issue #89 by providing a comprehensive performance analysis comparing the
GetZero()method with aggressive inlining versus zero literals and other alternatives.Key Findings
🎯 Current implementation validated - The existing
GetZero()methods withAggressiveInliningperform 9% better than zero literals.Performance Results (100M iterations):
Analysis
Critical Importance of Inlining
The
MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInliningattribute is essential - removing it causes a 180% performance penalty.Current Architecture is Sound
The existing implementation in:
SplitMemoryLinksBase.cs:1002UnitedMemoryLinksBase.cs:723Both methods correctly use aggressive inlining and outperform direct zero literals.
Recommendations
GetZero()methodsdefault(TLinkAddress)for maximum performance where appropriateTest Implementation
Added comprehensive benchmarks:
GetZeroVsZeroFieldBenchmarks.cs- BenchmarkDotNet-based detailed analysisQuickPerformanceTest.cs- Simple performance verificationPERFORMANCE_ANALYSIS.md- Detailed findings and recommendationsConclusion
Issue #89 is resolved - the current
GetZero()method implementation is well-optimized and performs better than direct zero field/literal access.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Resolves #89