STL thrust multiple vector transform?

I was wondering if there was a more efficient way of writing a = a + b + c?

 thrust::transform(b.begin(), b.end(), c.begin(), b.begin(), thrust::plus<int>());
 thrust::transform(a.begin(), a.end(), b.begin(), a.begin(), thrust::plus<int>());

This works but is there a way to get the same effect using just one line of code? I looked at the saxpy implementation in the examples, however this uses 2 vectors and a constant value;

---

Is this more efficient?

struct arbitrary_functor
{
    template <typename Tuple>
    __host__ __device__
    void operator()(Tuple t)
    {
        // D[i] = A[i] + B[i] + C[i];
        thrust::get<3>(t) = thrust::get<0>(t) + thrust::get<1>(t) + thrust::get<2>(t);
    }
};


int main(){

     // allocate storage
    thrust::host_vector<int> A;
    thrust::host_vector<int> B;开发者_运维知识库
    thrust::host_vector<int> C;

    // initialize input vectors
    A.push_back(10);
    B.push_back(10);
    C.push_back(10);

    // apply the transformation
    thrust::for_each(thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(A.begin(), B.begin(), C.begin(), A.begin())),
                     thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(A.end(),   B.end(),   C.end(),   A.end())),
                     arbitrary_functor());

    // print the output
       std::cout << A[0] << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

---

a = a + b + c has low arithmetic intensity (only two arithmetic operations for every 4 memory operations), so the computation is going to be memory bandwidth bound. To compare the efficiency of your proposed solutions, we need to measure their bandwidth demands.

Each call to transform in the first solution requires two loads and one store for each call to plus. So we can model the cost of each transform call as 3N, where N is the size of the vectors a, b, and c. Since there are two invocations of transform, the cost of this solution is 6N.

We can model the cost of the second solution in the same way. Each invocation of arbitrary_functor requires three loads and one store. So a cost model for this solution would be 4N, which implies that the for_each solution should be more efficient than calling transform twice. When N is large, the second solution should perform 6N/4N = 1.5x faster than the first.

Of course, you could always combine zip_iterator with transform in a similar way to avoid two separate calls to transform.