SortingNetworks VS ikos

On a side-note: I did an experiment to see whether C# could match C++ for vector-intensive computing: https://github.com/zvrba/SortingNetworks

Here's a concrete example of using pointers to access raw array memory and use SIMD intrinsics: https://github.com/zvrba/SortingNetworks

And now, for the fun of it, you can try with sorting. I've already done the hard work in C# (AVX2 intrinsics): https://github.com/zvrba/SortingNetworks

> I can't read C#

Not much different than C++...

> Do you generate the sorting network at compile time

No, except for power of two sizes up to 32. I experimented with run-time code generation (and compilation) for given sizes, but... the generated machine code has too long prologue and epilogue for that to be worth-while (though the sorting code itself is well optimized, as if directly compiled from source). That's also mentioned in "Benchmarks" section.

> What's your sorting network template?

See References.

> And probably related: how is vectorization used?

See the code. There's no template, the code is fully "dynamic" and adapts itself to array size. As for vectorization... it compares/swaps 8 ints/floats at once, with some swizzles to rearrange the elements. For sizes that are not power of 2, I use masked loads and stores and some extra logic for deciding which comparisons to skip. (I treat non-existing elements "as if" they were set to intmax or float infinity.)

This file https://github.com/zvrba/SortingNetworks/blob/master/Sorting... has it all.

> this week-end project

Sorry, can't read Rust. (Though it reminds me of days spent coding in Perl.) Most networks are not SIMD-friendly and the code as it's now is the 3rd iteration where I figured out how to best leverage SIMD to exploit the recursiveness and regularity in the network. (Not the least, no random memory accesses: only forward and backward loads and stores.)

Without SIMD, I don't think it'll be worth it, because network will also access the memory randomly (just as "standard" sort), and in addition it has worse algorithmic complexity.

So recently I posted a link with code for fast sorting of int arrays. People wondered how they'd perform for large arrays (1M elements), and I conjectured they'd be way slower because of their algorithmic complexity. Turns out I was wrong, they're 3-6x faster for arrays of length up to 1M elements. Updated code and benchmarks are now available at https://github.com/zvrba/SortingNetworks

The code (MIT license) is available here: https://github.com/zvrba/SortingNetworks

I beg to differ: there are a few tools which are comparable.

Frama-C (https://www.frama-c.com) is an open source framework that has, among its analyzers, one based on abstract interpretation (https://www.frama-c.com/fc-plugins/eva.html) that is very similar in spirit to Astree.

MOPSA (https://mopsa.lip6.fr) is another open-source project (albeit more recent, and in a more "academic" stage) that also provides abstract interpretation to analyze C programs for flaws.

NASA also released IKOS (https://github.com/NASA-SW-VnV/ikos), on the same vein.

Of course they lack the polish of a product which costs tens of thousands of euros per license, but they are open source, and their purpose is the same: to ensure code safety via formal methods, in particular abstract interpretation.

It is possible to get these tools to analyze some code and generate no complaints, which ensures absence of several kinds of problems, such as memory safety issues.

Then again, it's hard to know exactly how much they differ from Astree, since you need a license to compare them, and I don't even know if you are allowed to publish such comparisons.

I've been playing around with running IKOS (https://github.com/NASA-SW-VnV/ikos), it sounds very cool but doesn't seem to be super well maintained. I've managed to compile my project to llvm bit-code and run the IKSO on it, but the actual analysis seems to be buggy. There are open issues for the problems I encountered, but the make the analysis pretty useless (it thinks most functions are unreachable).

> https://www.absint.com/astree/index.htm

This looks interesting. It's based on abstract interpretation which is more or less the most powerful approach for imperative code available. (Because the way it works it's likely slow as hell though, I guess).

But it's closed source. One of this kind of products where you need to asks for the price… I think we all know what this means: It'll be laughably expensive.

I don't see any offer for OpenSource projects frankly.

> https://github.com/NASA-SW-VnV/ikos

Also abstract interpretation based. Looks less polished than the first one at first glance.

It's under some questionable license. According to OSI it's OpenSource. According to the FSF it's not. (The FSF argument sounds strong. They're right in my opinion. This NASA license does not look like OpenSource).

But an OpenSource project could use it for free I assume.

> https://github.com/static-analysis-engineering/CodeHawk-C

Much more constrained in scope than the other ones. But looks a little bit "too academic" imho: Uses its own C parser and such.

At least it's OpenSource under MIT license.

Thanks for the links either way! Good to know about some tools in case one would need them at some point.

> I have planned to try using them on OpenZFS for a while, but I am still busy reviewing and fixing reports made by conventional static analyzers.

Stupid question about usual C development practices (as I don't have much contact with that):

Aren't analyzers today part of the build pipeline form the get go? Especially as C is known to be full of booby traps.

Imho it shouldn't be even possible to push anything that has issues discovered by tools.

This should be the lowest barrier as most code analyzers are at most able to spot quite obvious problems (the commercial one above is likely an exception to this "rule"). When even the usual "stupid analyzer" sees issues than the code is very likely in a very bad shape.

Adding such tools later on in the development is like activating warnings post factum: You'll get drowned in issues.

Especially in such critical domains as file-systems I would actually expect that the developers are using "the best tools money can buy" (or at least the best OpenSource tools available).

"Still fixing bugs found by some code analyzer" doesn't sound like someone should have much trust with their data in something like ZFS, to be honest… The statement sounds actually quite scary to me.

They have very unusual license which I have never seen before: https://github.com/NASA-SW-VnV/ikos/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

Is anyone familiar with it? Is it OSI certified? (it's not on the OSI's site).

Yeah there are tools that require adding contracts as comments. But again, there are also friction-less tools that don't require any changes (for example a NASA one).