Which block `@inbounds` actually avoid testing bounds?

General Usage
1

For example, this simple function:

function f(vec1,vec2)
  for i in 2:length(vec1)
    vec1[i] = vec1[i] - vec2[i-1]
  end
  nothing
end

I get:

julia> @btime f($vec1,$vec2)
  759.284 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)

If I add @inbounds to the inner loop, I get:

julia> @btime f($vec1,$vec2)
  107.009 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
Code 
function f(vec1,vec2)
  @inbounds for i in 2:length(vec1)
    vec1[i] = vec1[i] - vec2[i-1]
  end
  nothing
end

But if I add @inbounds to the function declaration as a whole, I get again the slow performance:

julia> @btime f($vec1,$vec2)
  758.388 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
Code 
@inbounds function f(vec1,vec2)
  for i in 2:length(vec1)
    vec1[i] = vec1[i] - vec2[i-1]
  end
  nothing
end

It is not clear to me what is the actual block inbounds acts upon. I tried Base.@propagage_inbounds but the result is the same. I could not figure out from the manual how inbounds is, or not, propagating.

This also makes me wonder why the example of its use is something like:

      for i = 1:length(A)
          @inbounds r += A[i]
      end

and not just adding it to the loop as a whole. I have seen this pattern often, but never figured out why one would do that instead of flagging the whole loop.

1 Like
2

We clearly need to document this better, as it’s snagged some of the best of us.

@inbounds is effectively a runtime macro, not a recursive syntax transform. It turns of bounds checking, then runs the wrapped code, then turns it back on again. When you do @inbounds function f() ... end, you’re removing bounds checking during the definition of the function. Within the function, though, it doesn’t matter if you write:

@inbounds for ...
end
# or
for ...
    @inbounds r += A[i]
end
# or
@inbounds begin
    for ...
    end
end

I like scoping it as narrowly as possible if it’s convenient to do so since I might add more things into a for loop or an arbitrary block of code and forget that @inbounds is applied.

4 Likes
3

For me, it’s aesthetic reasons. I never liked that macros mess up the alignment of blocks with end. Putting @inbounds inside the loop, when there’s just a single applicable expression for it, just looks cleaner.

1 Like
4

Macros look much like Python decorators, but decorators can be put above the block they apply to.

Sometimes I wish macros would consume the next non-empty expression, or something (maybe discard leading whitespace?), then I could put @inbounds, @threads, etc. above the block. It would look nice and also be easy to comment out.

3 Likes