Hint for branch prediction in assertions - c++

Question

I have a custom ASSERT(...) macro which I use in a C++ application.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>
/// ASSERT(expr) checks if expr is true. If not, error details are logged
/// and the process is exited with a non-zero code.
#ifdef INCLUDE_ASSERTIONS
#define ASSERT(expr) \
if (!(expr)) { \
char buf[4096]; \
snprintf (buf, 4096, "Assertion failed in \"%s\", line %d\n%s\n", \
__FILE__, __LINE__, #expr); \
std::cerr << buf; \
::abort(); \
} \
else // This 'else' exists to catch the user's following semicolon
#else
#define ASSERT(expr)
#endif
Recently I was reading some Linux kernel module code and came across the existence of likely(...) and unlikely(...) macros. These provide a hint to the CPU that a given branch is more likely, and that the pipeline should optimise for that path.
Assertions are, by definition, expected to evaluate to true (i.e. likely).
Can I provide a similar hint in my ASSERT macro? What's the underlying mechanism here?
Obviously I will measure for any difference in performance, but in theory should it make any difference?
I only run my code on Linux, but would be interested to know if there's a cross platform way of doing this too. I'm also using gcc, but would like to support clang as well.

Answer 1

The performance gain is not likely to be significant, but this is how those linux kernel macros are defined:
#define likely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 1)
#define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
So, you could modify your condition like this (assuming that expr is expected to be true and therefore !(expr) is expected to be false):
if (__builtin_expect(!(expr), 0)) {
Or you could define the same macros as the kernel and use them for better readability.
This is gcc builtin, so not portable of course.
This suggests that clang also supports the builtin. Othrwise, you can use the above macros and conditionally define them like #define likely(x) (x) on compilers that don't support the builtin.
In your case, the prediction is going to be good (either that or you're aborting), so there shouldn't be a risk of pessimisation, but if you do consider using the builtin more widely, here's a word of advice from gcc documentation:
In general, you should prefer to use actual profile feedback for this (-fprofile-arcs), as programmers are notoriously bad at predicting how their programs actually perform.

Answer 2

For many CPUs, likely and unlikely (or anything else for that matter) don't provide a branch hint to the CPU (only to the compiler, which may use it to optimize differently, similar to profile guided optimization) for the simple reason that there is no way to do it.
For example, branch hints are defined for x86 since P4. Before that they had no effect, but it's even worse, they have no effect on anything except P4. So they're useless (but waste space and bandwidth), and as far as I know GCC does not emit them.
ARM doesn't (yet?) have branch hints either. PPC, IA64 and SPARC do have hinted branches, I don't know whether GCC uses likely and unlikely for them though, but at least it could.

Answer 3

There is no need for any additional annotation. The compiler already knows about abort being called very rarely (at most once per program execution), and so the compiler will consider the branch containing abort as the unlikely branch anyway. You can verify this by looking at the declaration of abort. In glibc it is declared as
extern void abort (void) __THROW __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
and in Visual Studio 2013:
_CRTIMP __declspec(noreturn) void __cdecl abort(void);