Like many modern programming languages, Julia uses bounds checking to ensure program safety when accessing arrays. In tight inner loops or other performance critical situations, you may wish to skip these bounds checks to improve runtime performance. For instance, in order to emit vectorized (SIMD) instructions, your loop body cannot contain branches, and thus cannot contain bounds checks. Consequently, Julia includes an
@inbounds(...) macro to tell the compiler to skip such bounds checks within the given block. User-defined array types can use the
@boundscheck(...) macro to achieve context-sensitive code selection.
Eliding bounds checks
@boundscheck(...) macro marks blocks of code that perform bounds checking. When such blocks are inlined into an
@inbounds(...) block, the compiler may remove these blocks. The compiler removes the
@boundscheck block only if it is inlined into the calling function. For example, you might write the method
function sum(A::AbstractArray) r = zero(eltype(A)) for i = 1:length(A) @inbounds r += A[i] end return r end
With a custom array-like type
@inline getindex(A::MyArray, i::Real) = (@boundscheck checkbounds(A,i); A.data[to_index(i)])
getindex is inlined into
sum, the call to
checkbounds(A,i) will be elided. If your function contains multiple layers of inlining, only
@boundscheck blocks at most one level of inlining deeper are eliminated. The rule prevents unintended changes in program behavior from code further up the stack.
There may be certain scenarios where for code-organization reasons you want more than one layer between the
@boundscheck declarations. For instance, the default
getindex methods have the chain
getindex(A::AbstractArray, i::Real) calls
getindex(IndexStyle(A), A, i) calls
_getindex(::IndexLinear, A, i).
To override the "one layer of inlining" rule, a function may be marked with
Base.@propagate_inbounds to propagate an inbounds context (or out of bounds context) through one additional layer of inlining.
The bounds checking call hierarchy
The overall hierarchy is:
checkbounds(A, I...)which calls
checkbounds(Bool, A, I...)which calls
checkbounds_indices(Bool, axes(A), I)which recursively calls
checkindexfor each dimension
A is the array, and
I contains the "requested" indices.
axes(A) returns a tuple of "permitted" indices of
checkbounds(A, I...) throws an error if the indices are invalid, whereas
checkbounds(Bool, A, I...) returns
false in that circumstance.
checkbounds_indices discards any information about the array other than its
axes tuple, and performs a pure indices-vs-indices comparison: this allows relatively few compiled methods to serve a huge variety of array types. Indices are specified as tuples, and are usually compared in a 1-1 fashion with individual dimensions handled by calling another important function,
checkbounds_indices(Bool, (IA1, IA...), (I1, I...)) = checkindex(Bool, IA1, I1) & checkbounds_indices(Bool, IA, I)
checkindex checks a single dimension. All of these functions, including the unexported
checkbounds_indices have docstrings accessible with
If you have to customize bounds checking for a specific array type, you should specialize
checkbounds(Bool, A, I...). However, in most cases you should be able to rely on
checkbounds_indices as long as you supply useful
axes for your array type.
If you have novel index types, first consider specializing
checkindex, which handles a single index for a particular dimension of an array. If you have a custom multidimensional index type (similar to
CartesianIndex), then you may have to consider specializing
Note this hierarchy has been designed to reduce the likelihood of method ambiguities. We try to make
checkbounds the place to specialize on array type, and try to avoid specializations on index types; conversely,
checkindex is intended to be specialized only on index type (especially, the last argument).