Related
I recently ran into a situation where I wrote the following code:
for(int i = 0; i < (size - 1); i++)
{
// do whatever
}
// Assume 'size' will be constant during the duration of the for loop
When looking at this code, it made me wonder how exactly the for loop condition is evaluated for each loop. Specifically, I'm curious as to whether or not the compiler would 'optimize away' any additional arithmetic that has to be done for each loop. In my case, would this code get compiled such that (size - 1) would have to be evaluated for every loop iteration? Or is the compiler smart enough to realize that the 'size' variable won't change, thus it could precalculate it for each loop iteration.
This then got me thinking about the general case where you have a conditional statement that may specify more operations than necessary.
As an example, how would the following two pieces of code compile:
if(6)
if(1+1+1+1+1+1)
int foo = 1;
if(foo + foo + foo + foo + foo + foo)
How smart is the compiler? Will the 3 cases listed above be converted into the same machine code?
And while I'm at, why not list another example. What does the compiler do if you are doing an operation within a conditional that won't have any effect on the end result? Example:
if(2*(val))
// Assume val is an int that can take on any value
In this example, the multiplication is completely unnecessary. While this case seems a lot stupider than my original case, the question still stands: will the compiler be able to remove this unnecessary multiplication?
Question:
How much optimization is involved with conditional statements?
Does it vary based on compiler?
Short answer: the compiler is exceptionally clever, and will generally optimise those cases that you have presented (including utterly ignoring irrelevant conditions).
One of the biggest hurdles language newcomers face in terms of truly understanding C++, is that there is not a one-to-one relationship between their code and what the computer executes. The entire purpose of the language is to create an abstraction. You are defining the program's semantics, but the computer has no responsibility to actually follow your C++ code line by line; indeed, if it did so, it would be abhorrently slow as compared to the speed we can expect from modern computers.
Generally speaking, unless you have a reason to micro-optimise (game developers come to mind), it is best to almost completely ignore this facet of programming, and trust your compiler. Write a program that takes the inputs you want, and gives the outputs you want, after performing the calculations you want… and let your compiler do the hard work of figuring out how the physical machine is going to make all that happen.
Are there exceptions? Certainly. Sometimes your requirements are so specific that you do know better than the compiler, and you end up optimising. You generally do this after profiling and determining what your bottlenecks are. And there's also no excuse to write deliberately silly code. After all, if you go out of your way to ask your program to copy a 50MB vector, then it's going to copy a 50MB vector.
But, assuming sensible code that means what it looks like, you really shouldn't spend too much time worrying about this. Because modern compilers are so good at optimising, that you'd be a fool to try to keep up.
The C++ language specification permits the compiler to make any optimization that results in no observable changes to the expected results.
If the compiler can determine that size is constant and will not change during execution, it can certainly make that particular optimization.
Alternatively, if the compiler can also determine that i is not used in the loop (and its value is not used afterwards), that it is used only as a counter, it might very well rewrite the loop to:
for(int i = 1; i < size; i++)
because that might produce smaller code. Even if this i is used in some fashion, the compiler can still make this change and then adjust all other usage of i so that the observable results are still the same.
To summarize: anything goes. The compiler may or may not make any optimization change as long as the observable results are the same.
Yes, there is a lot of optimization, and it is very complex.
It varies based on the compiler, and it also varies based on the compiler options
Check
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25840/can-we-stop-recommending-the-dragon-book-please
for some book recomendations if you really want to understand what a compiler may do. It is a very complex subject.
You can also compile to assembly with the -S option (gcc / g++) to see what the compiler is really doing. Use -O3 / ... / -O0 / -O to experiment with different optimization levels.
I have some equations that involve multiple operations that I would like to run as fast as possible. Since the c++ compiler breaks it down in to machine code anyway does it matter if I break it up to multiple lines like
A=4*B+4*C;
D=3*E/F;
G=A*D;
vs
G=12*E*(B+C)/F;
My need is more complex than this but the i think it conveys the idea. Also if this is in a function that gets called is in a loop, does defining double A, D cost CPU time vs putting it in as a class variable?
Using a modern compiler, Clang/Gcc/VC++/Intel, it won't really matter, the best thing you should do is worry about how readable your code will be and turn on optimizations, compiler designers are well aware of issues like these and design their compilers to (for the most part) optimize according.
If I were to say which would be slower I would assume the first way since there would be 3 mov instructions, I could be wrong. but this isn't something you should worry about too much.
If these variables are integers, that second code fragment is not a valid optimization of the first. For B=1, C=1, E=1, F=6, you have:
A=4*B+4*C; // 8
D=3*E/F; // 0
G=A*D; // 0
and
G=12*E*(B+C)/F; // 4
If floating point, then it really depends on what compiler, what compiler options, and what cpu you have.
Does using bitwise operations in normal flow or conditional statements like for, if, and so on increase overall performance and would it be better to use them where possible? For example:
if(i++ & 1) {
}
vs.
if(i % 2) {
}
Unless you're using an ancient compiler, it can already handle this level of conversion on its own. That is to say, a modern compiler can and will implement i % 2 using a bitwise AND instruction, provided it makes sense to do so on the target CPU (which, in fairness, it usually will).
In other words, don't expect to see any difference in performance between these, at least with a reasonably modern compiler with a reasonably competent optimizer. In this case, "reasonably" has a pretty broad definition too--even quite a few compilers that are decades old can handle this sort of micro-optimization with no difficulty at all.
TL;DR Write for semantics first, optimize measured hot-spots second.
At the CPU level, integer modulus and divisions are among the slowest operations. But you are not writing at the CPU level, instead you write in C++, which your compiler translates to an Intermediate Representation, which finally is translated into assembly according to the model of CPU for which you are compiling.
In this process, the compiler will apply Peephole Optimizations, among which figure Strength Reduction Optimizations such as (courtesy of Wikipedia):
Original Calculation Replacement Calculation
y = x / 8 y = x >> 3
y = x * 64 y = x << 6
y = x * 2 y = x << 1
y = x * 15 y = (x << 4) - x
The last example is perhaps the most interesting one. Whilst multiplying or dividing by powers of 2 is easily converted (manually) into bit-shifts operations, the compiler is generally taught to perform even smarter transformations that you would probably think about on your own and who are not as easily recognized (at the very least, I do not personally immediately recognize that (x << 4) - x means x * 15).
This is obviously CPU dependent, but you can expect that bitwise operations will never take more, and typically take less, CPU cycles to complete. In general, integer / and % are famously slow, as CPU instructions go. That said, with modern CPU pipelines having a specific instruction complete earlier doesn't mean your program necessarily runs faster.
Best practice is to write code that's understandable, maintainable, and expressive of the logic it implements. It's extremely rare that this kind of micro-optimisation makes a tangible difference, so it should only be used if profiling has indicated a critical bottleneck and this is proven to make a significant difference. Moreover, if on some specific platform it did make a significant difference, your compiler optimiser may already be substituting a bitwise operation when it can see that's equivalent (this usually requires that you're /-ing or %-ing by a constant).
For whatever it's worth, on x86 instructions specifically - and when the divisor is a runtime-variable value so can't be trivially optimised into e.g. bit-shifts or bitwise-ANDs, the time taken by / and % operations in CPU cycles can be looked up here. There are too many x86-compatible chips to list here, but as an arbitrary example of recent CPUs - if we take Agner's "Sunny Cove (Ice Lake)" (i.e. 10th gen Intel Core) data, DIV and IDIV instructions have a latency between 12 and 19 cycles, whereas bitwise-AND has 1 cycle. On many older CPUs DIV can be 40-60x worse.
By default you should use the operation that best expresses your intended meaning, because you should optimize for readable code. (Today most of the time the scarcest resource is the human programmer.)
So use & if you extract bits, and use % if you test for divisibility, i.e. whether the value is even or odd.
For unsigned values both operations have exactly the same effect, and your compiler should be smart enough to replace the division by the corresponding bit operation. If you are worried you can check the assembly code it generates.
Unfortunately integer division is slightly irregular on signed values, as it rounds towards zero and the result of % changes sign depending on the first operand. Bit operations, on the other hand, always round down. So the compiler cannot just replace the division by a simple bit operation. Instead it may either call a routine for integer division, or replace it with bit operations with additional logic to handle the irregularity. This may depends on the optimization level and on which of the operands are constants.
This irregularity at zero may even be a bad thing, because it is a nonlinearity. For example, I recently had a case where we used division on signed values from an ADC, which had to be very fast on an ARM Cortex M0. In this case it was better to replace it with a right shift, both for performance and to get rid of the nonlinearity.
C operators cannot be meaningfully compared in therms of "performance". There's no such thing as "faster" or "slower" operators at language level. Only the resultant compiled machine code can be analyzed for performance. In your specific example the resultant machine code will normally be exactly the same (if we ignore the fact that the first condition includes a postfix increment for some reason), meaning that there won't be any difference in performance whatsoever.
Here is the compiler (GCC 4.6) generated optimized -O3 code for both options:
int i = 34567;
int opt1 = i++ & 1;
int opt2 = i % 2;
Generated code for opt1:
l %r1,520(%r11)
nilf %r1,1
st %r1,516(%r11)
asi 520(%r11),1
Generated code for opt2:
l %r1,520(%r11)
nilf %r1,2147483649
ltr %r1,%r1
jhe .L14
ahi %r1,-1
oilf %r1,4294967294
ahi %r1,1
.L14: st %r1,512(%r11)
So 4 extra instructions...which are nothing for a prod environment. This would be a premature optimization and just introduce complexity
Always these answers about how clever compilers are, that people should not even think about the performance of their code, that they should not dare to question Her Cleverness The Compiler, that bla bla bla… and the result is that people get convinced that every time they use % [SOME POWER OF TWO] the compiler magically converts their code into & ([SOME POWER OF TWO] - 1). This is simply not true. If a shared library has this function:
int modulus (int a, int b) {
return a % b;
}
and a program launches modulus(135, 16), nowhere in the compiled code there will be any trace of bitwise magic. The reason? The compiler is clever, but it did not have a crystal ball when it compiled the library. It sees a generic modulus calculation with no information whatsoever about the fact that only powers of two will be involved and it leaves it as such.
But you can know if only powers of two will be passed to a function. And if that is the case, the only way to optimize your code is to rewrite your function as
unsigned int modulus_2 (unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
return a & (b - 1);
}
The compiler cannot do that for you.
Bitwise operations are much faster.
This is why the compiler will use bitwise operations for you.
Actually, I think it will be faster to implement it as:
~i & 1
Similarly, if you look at the assembly code your compiler generates, you may see things like x ^= x instead of x=0. But (I hope) you are not going to use this in your C++ code.
In summary, do yourself, and whoever will need to maintain your code, a favor. Make your code readable, and let the compiler do these micro optimizations. It will do it better.
In my code I must choose one of this two expressions (where mask and i non constant integer numbers -1 < i < (sizeof(int) << 3) + 1). I don't think that this will make preformance of my programm better or worse, but it is very interesting for me. Do you know which is better and why?
First of all, whenever you find yourself asking "which is faster", your first reaction should be to profile, measure and find out for yourself.
Second of all, this is such a tiny calculation, that it almost certainly has no bearing on the performance of your application.
Third, the two are most likely identical in performance.
C expressions cannot be "faster" or "slower", because CPU cannot evaluate them directly.
Which one is "faster" depends on the machine code your compiler will be able to generate for these two expressions. If your compiler is smart enough to realize that in your context both do the same thing (e.g. you simply compare the result with zero), it will probably generate the same code for both variants, meaning that they will be equally fast. In such case it is quite possible that the generated machine code will not even remotely resemble the sequence of operations in the original expression (i.e. no shift and/or no bitwise-and). If what you are trying to do here is just test the value of one bit, then there are other ways to do it besides the shift-and-bitwise-and combination. And many of those "other ways" are not expressible in C. You can't use them in C, while the compiler can use them in machine code.
For example, the x86 CPU has a dedicated bit-test instruction BT that extracts the value of a specific bit by its number. So a smart compiler might simply generate something like
MOV eax, i
BT mask, eax
...
for both of your expressions (assuming it is more efficient, of which I'm not sure).
Use either one and let your compiler optimize it however it likes.
If "i" is a compile-time constant, then the second would execute fewer instructions -- the 1 << i would be computed at compile time. Otherwise I'd imagine they'd be the same.
Depends entirely on where the values mask and i come from, and the architecture on which the program is running. There's also nothing to stop the compiler from transforming one into the other in situations where they are actually equivalent.
In short, not worth worrying about unless you have a trace showing that this is an appreciable fraction of total execution time.
It is unlikely that either will be faster. If you are really curious, compile a simple program that does both, disassemble, and see what instructions are generated.
Here is how to do that:
gcc -O0 -g main.c -o main
objdump -d main | less
You could examine the assembly output and then look-up how many clock cycles each instruction takes.
But in 99.9999999 percent of programs, it won't make a lick of difference.
The 2 expressions are not logically equivalent, performance is not your concern!
If performance was your concern, write a loop to do 10 million of each and measure.
EDIT: You edited the question after my response ... so please ignore my answer as the constraints change things.
Which compiles to faster code: "ans = n * 3" or "ans = n+(n*2)"?
Assuming that n is either an int or a long, and it is is running on a modern Win32 Intel box.
Would this be different if there was some dereferencing involved, that is, which of these would be faster?
long a;
long *pn;
long ans;
...
*pn = some_number;
ans = *pn * 3;
Or
ans = *pn+(*pn*2);
Or, is it something one need not worry about as optimizing compilers are likely to account for this in any case?
IMO such micro-optimization is not necessary unless you work with some exotic compiler. I would put readability on the first place.
It doesn't matter. Modern processors can execute an integer MUL instruction in one clock cycle or less, unlike older processers which needed to perform a series of shifts and adds internally in order to perform the MUL, thereby using multiple cycles. I would bet that
MUL EAX,3
executes faster than
MOV EBX,EAX
SHL EAX,1
ADD EAX,EBX
The last processor where this sort of optimization might have been useful was probably the 486. (yes, this is biased to intel processors, but is probably representative of other architectures as well).
In any event, any reasonable compiler should be able to generate the smallest/fastest code. So always go with readability first.
As it's easy to measure it yourself, why don't do that? (Using gcc and time from cygwin)
/* test1.c */
int main()
{
int result = 0;
int times = 1000000000;
while (--times)
result = result * 3;
return result;
}
machine:~$ gcc -O2 test1.c -o test1
machine:~$ time ./test1.exe
real 0m0.673s
user 0m0.608s
sys 0m0.000s
Do the test for a couple of times and repeat for the other case.
If you want to peek at the assembly code, gcc -S -O2 test1.c
This would depend on the compiler, its configuration and the surrounding code.
You should not try and guess whether things are 'faster' without taking measurements.
In general you should not worry about this kind of nanoscale optimisation stuff nowadays - it's almost always a complete irrelevance, and if you were genuinely working in a domain where it mattered, you would already be using a profiler and looking at the assembly language output of the compiler.
It's not difficult to find out what the compiler is doing with your code (I'm using DevStudio 2005 here). Write a simple program with the following code:
int i = 45, j, k;
j = i * 3;
k = i + (i * 2);
Place a breakpoint on the middle line and run the code using the debugger. When the breakpoint is triggered, right click on the source file and select "Go To Disassembly". You will now have a window with the code the CPU is executing. You will notice in this case that the last two lines produce exactly the same instructions, namely, "lea eax,[ebx+ebx*2]" (not bit shifting and adding in this particular case). On a modern IA32 CPU, it's probably more efficient to do a straight MUL rather than bit shifting due to pipelineing nature of the CPU which incurs a penalty when using a modified value too soon.
This demonstrates what aku is talking about, namely, compilers are clever enough to pick the best instructions for your code.
It does depend on the compiler you are actually using, but very probably they translate to the same code.
You can check it by yourself by creating a small test program and checking its disassembly.
Most compilers are smart enough to decompose an integer multiplication into a series of bit shifts and adds. I don't know about Windows compilers, but at least with gcc you can get it to spit out the assembler, and if you look at that you can probably see identical assembler for both ways of writing it.
It doesn't care. I think that there are more important things to optimize. How much time have you invested thinking and writing that question instead of coding and testing by yourself?
:-)
As long as you're using a decent optimising compiler, just write code that's easy for the compiler to understand. This makes it easier for the compiler to perform clever optimisations.
You asking this question indicates that an optimising compiler knows more about optimisation than you do. So trust the compiler. Use n * 3.
Have a look at this answer as well.
Compilers are good at optimising code such as yours. Any modern compiler would produce the same code for both cases and additionally replace * 2 by a left shift.
Trust your compiler to optimize little pieces of code like that. Readability is much more important at the code level. True optimization should come at a higher level.