Does bulk memmove speed up std:remove_if? (No.)
The article discusses the performance implications of using bulk memmove in the std::remove_if algorithm. It argues that while chunking writes may seem beneficial, it can actually lead to worse performance due to increased bookkeeping and overhead. Benchmark results indicate that the traditional smooth_remove_if implementation outperforms the chunky_remove_if in various scenarios.
- ▪The proposed chunky_remove_if algorithm aims to optimize the removal of elements by using memmove for contiguous writes.
- ▪Benchmarking shows that chunky_remove_if performs worse than the traditional smooth_remove_if, even when designed to favor its strengths.
- ▪The performance penalty of chunky_remove_if increases as fewer elements are removed, suggesting inefficiencies in its design.
Hacker News (Newest) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 5,306 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Arthur O’Dwyer |
| Canonical URL | https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2026/05/23/chunked-remove/ |
| Publication time | Sun, 24 May 2026 05:17:13 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-24T05:37:31.034Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-24T05:37:31.034Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | d2CkLYMizM6t |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Does bulk memmove speed up std::remove_if? (No.) This morning I was reading the umpteenth std-proposals thread proposing some variety of unstable_remove and it occurred to me that one odd thing about a swap-and-pop-based unstable_remove is that it tends to replace large swaths of contiguous removals by reversing the elements that are kept. For example (Godbolt): template<class BidirIt, class Pred> BidirIt unstable_remove_if(BidirIt first, BidirIt last, Pred pred) { while (true) { first = std::find_if(first, last, pred); if (first == last) return first; while (true) { --last; if (first == last) return first; if (!pred(*last)) break; } *first++ = std::move(*last); } } int main() { auto in234 = [](int x) { return 2 <= x && x <= 4; }; std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Arthur O’Dwyer.