Rust-Based, Memory-Safe PNG Decoders "Vastly Outperform" C-Based PNG Libraries

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Quackdoc
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2020
    • 5063

    #11
    Rust is great for decoders in general because memory safe is actually a massive issue in general. But I do wish more rust decoders were more friendly on the system, a lot of them will happily run full tilt making other programs suffer. No idea why this happens on average.

    EDIT: anyone got a drop in replacement for rust png crate for libpng

    Comment

    • cynic
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2011
      • 1089

      #12
      optimized for unicorns and rainbow pictures!

      Comment

      • Shnatsel
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2012
        • 143

        #13
        Originally posted by chuckula View Post
        So this isn't really an advertisement for RUST, it's an advertisement for AVX256 & AVX512. Which I do like, but let's not conflate things.
        The benchmarks were run on baseline x86_64 (SSE2) and Aarch64 (NEON). And there isn't any runtime detection for AVX anywhere in Rust code. So no, it has nothing to do with AVX.

        Read the actual post if you want to know how this performance was achieved.

        Comment

        • DudeBro
          Junior Member
          • Aug 2023
          • 15

          #14
          Originally posted by reba View Post

          Nothing beats handcrafted Assembler. C is just ugly bloat. Professionals do not need excellent tooling modern languages provide. These people just piss excellence.
          There was an online programming competition that countet prime numbers up to a million and people where asked to provide the fastest code they can.

          nobody in the competition who wrote assembler managed to create faster code that what the rust compiler created.

          So if you are not an absolute master at assembly you likely will not be faster

          Comment

          • Steffo
            Senior Member
            • Jan 2013
            • 604

            #15
            Originally posted by chuckula View Post
            Additionally, if the RUST implementation requires me to download 8GB of "crates" to decode a PNG, I'm not sure it's actually good.
            You seem to be the type of guy, which makes some public claims without really looking into facts, right?

            Comment

            • bug77
              Senior Member
              • Dec 2009
              • 6516

              #16
              Originally posted by Volta View Post

              Where?



              They're only faster, because support the latest optimizations. Performance of C solutions can be the fastest.
              The tragedy of C: always "can be", never "is".

              Comment

              • skeevy420
                Senior Member
                • May 2017
                • 8641

                #17
                Originally posted by Shnatsel View Post

                The benchmarks were run on baseline x86_64 (SSE2) and Aarch64 (NEON). And there isn't any runtime detection for AVX anywhere in Rust code. So no, it has nothing to do with AVX.

                Read the actual post if you want to know how this performance was achieved.
                Shh. How else are we supposed to filter out people who are definitely late to the program?

                Comment

                • chuckula
                  Senior Member
                  • Dec 2011
                  • 844

                  #18
                  Originally posted by Shnatsel View Post

                  The benchmarks were run on baseline x86_64 (SSE2) and Aarch64 (NEON). And there isn't any runtime detection for AVX anywhere in Rust code. So no, it has nothing to do with AVX.

                  Read the actual post if you want to know how this performance was achieved.
                  Well since it's for "performance" benchmarks on niche platforms where the original C libraries were never even optimized in the first place then it actually supports my point even more than if it was x86

                  And no I didn't read it because RUST articles tend to just be religious tracts instead of anything actually technical. And I was right.​​​

                  Comment

                  • reba
                    Senior Member
                    • May 2020
                    • 676

                    #19
                    Originally posted by chuckula View Post
                    And no I didn't read it because RUST articles tend to just be religious tracts instead of anything actually technical. And I was right.​​​
                    The technical information is in the linked article and also the fact the Rust implementation is faster. Your feelings don't matter.

                    Comment

                    • Shnatsel
                      Senior Member
                      • Jan 2012
                      • 143

                      #20
                      Originally posted by chuckula View Post

                      Well since it's for "performance" benchmarks on niche platforms where the original C libraries were never even optimized in the first place​​​
                      Ah yes, 64-bit x86, the niche platform that the C libraries were never optimized for 😂

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X