Optimizing C++ Code: Dead Code Elimination

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2013/08/09/optimizing-c-code-dead-code-elimination.aspx

by AndreyKarpov • 13 years ago

57 34 13 years ago

blogs.msdn.com

eliasmacpherson2• 13 years ago

Got stung by this testing out of idle curiousity whether strncmp or memcmp was faster the other day.

deletes• 13 years ago

So memcmp was faster, right?

eliasmacpherson2• 13 years ago

Didn't finish the job, realised code was optimised out by O3 and left it at that. Unoptimised strncmp was beating unoptimised memcmp, it was taking 1.900s to finish where memcmp was taking 2.178s over many iterations.

octo_t2• 13 years ago

Dead Code Elimination can even optimise out blocking loops, a loop like for(;;) can be optimised out.

dman• 13 years ago

So the compiler writers are bringing lazy evaluation to the unsuspecting masses?

octo_t2• 13 years ago

Thats not lazy evaluation so much as "this loop literally doesn't do anything"

knz422• 13 years ago

I don't believe that's right (see below why). Point me to one compiler which does this intentionally (ie not a bug) and I would stand corrected, but in most cases most compiler experts I know (myself included) would frown and disapprove. There was a bug in GCC a while ago to that effect, but it's been corrected since.

Why: Computationally, there is no difference between "no code" and "a loop that iterates 100 times and does nothing". It is thus correct to eliminate the latter to preserve the observable behaviour. However, a loop that never terminates is a very different thing entirely: it says "execution will never progress past this point" and everything afterwards will never be reached. This property is so enshrined in theoretical computer science that any half-decent verification tool will consider what comes after the loop as dead code and not check it. In the newer GCC and Clang the code after a never-ending loop will be marked "unreachable" and be killed as dead code.

So removing a never-ending loop would be quite the big deal indeed.

Technical note: specifically in C and C++ and every language implemented using them, a loop with a counter but no check on the upper bound (eg. "for(i = 0; ; ++i)" ) is very different from the empty loop discussed above. Such a loop would be called "undefined behavior": the program may or may not stop, the world may explode, etc. This is because C and C++ say that overflow has undefined behavior. So this kind of loop does not mean "the programmer intends the control flow to terminate here", but rather "the programmer is playing with fire and it can burn".

nhaehnle2• 13 years ago

What you write is perfectly plausible, and yet you're wrong. Such is the magic of the C++ standard ;)

There is a part of the C++ standard that says something along the lines of: the compiler may assume that every program will eventually exhibit some side-effect. That part of the standard also explicitly states that this is intended to allow compilers to remove loops with empty bodies (or bodies with only dead code) even if they cannot prove termination of the loop. See e.g. page 14 of http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N3690.pdf

This is certainly useful when you think of code that is created indirectly via macros and/or template instantiation. Whether compilers actually perform this "optimization" on explicit endless loops like for(;;); is another question, but at least C++ can claim to be able to run certain endless loops in under a second ;)

detrino• 13 years ago

Your technical note is only true for signed integers and unsigned integers are usually the correct types for such counting loops.

beerscout• 13 years ago

Somewhat related: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/140

aa0• 13 years ago

MSVC, barely supports C99 but has time to have devs make posts about the obvious nature of optimization. Sigh.

gecko4• 13 years ago

This gets repeated a lot, but I'll say it again anyway:

MSVC is a C++ compiler. It happens to support some C99 (and will support more in VS2013, actually), but that's not its focus. While I, and many other Windows developers, feel that its standard compliance has fallen a bit behind in the last five years or so, Microsoft has made tremendous strides towards fixing that problem lately, and the roadmap (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/somasegar/archive/2013/06/28/1042993...) for full C++11/14 compliance looks good, and seems reasonable. Further, while C++11/14 compliance in MSVC isn't amazing, its compilation speed, and the optimizations it can deliver to its compiled executables, are both top-notch. VC++ generally seems to land between GCC and ICC for most code I write.

Is it perfect? No. Should it support more of C++11 and 14? Yes, and they're working on it. But as much as I wish there were a great C99 compiler on Windows, Microsoft has been open for a very, very long time that that's simply not their focus. Just as I don't assail Apple for Xcode's lousy Python support, I don't see a point in attacking MSVC for not doing C support.

tveita• 13 years ago

It would help if they would just declare it unmaintained. Maybe projects would give up on sticking to a 20 year old C standard just to maintain compatibility with MSVC.

zerr• 13 years ago

btw, do you [heavely] use c++ at fogcreek?

binarycrusader• 13 years ago

The XCode Python support comment is specious at best.

We're talking about C -- the lingua franca of systems programming and important on every major computing platform.

I'd be more sympathetic to Microsoft's insistence that it "wasn't their focus" if they didn't have a long history of ignoring industry standards in favour of their own.

However, Microsoft recently said they were going to implement more of c99:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/c99-ac...

...and to their credit, they've almost fully implemented the standard library from the C99 standard:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2013/07/19/c99-librar...

Of course, the C11/C++11 committees know how to solve this silliness -- they've intentionally worked on bringing the most recent C11 and C++11 standards closer so that if you implement C++11 you have to implement more C support :-)

The world no longer revolves around Windows or Microsoft platforms; every major platform except Microsoft's has an included or defacto compiler that supports C99. Developers wanting to write code that can be used on multiple platforms are understandably upset that Microsoft has made their lives more difficult for no good reason.

I view their lack of C99 support the same as their continued refusal to natively support OpenGL on Windows Phone, et al.

Although, given they recently implemented WebGL -- I remain hopeful.

Finally, I'd note that I'm pragmatic about this; I don't expect full C99 support. I'd accept full C11 support instead -- the controversial parts of C99 were made optional in C11. And they now finally seem committed to at least making a useful attempt at C99/C11 support thanks to the C++11/C++1y standards.

cjensen2• 13 years ago

Microsoft won't support a 14 year old C Standard because it's "really a C++ compiler"? When, exactly, did it from being a "C compiler" too?

At what point should a C++ Programmer worry that Visual Studio is becoming "really a C# coding environment"? Over the last few years, we've seen C# get features first with C++ receiving the same features only if MS gets around to it.

I miss the days when Microsoft cared about development tools because they had a lot of competition.

sharth2• 13 years ago

Personally, I'd expect a compiler to take it one step further than what was suggested here.

For example, clang or gcc (under -O1) will precompute all of the math in that for-loop, and the entire function just becomes the printf with a known value.

    define i32 @main() nounwind uwtable ssp {
      %1 = tail call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([6 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, i64 0), i64 500000000500000000) nounwind
      ret i32 0
    }

CurtHagenlocher• 13 years ago

If you read all the way into the comments, you'll see that this does happen -- but only for values of n that are quite small. And this is a side effect of other optimizations -- not because of anything specific to this closed form.

sharth2• 13 years ago

Yeah, I was just now skimming through the comments as well and I saw that. It looks like their constant propagation logic doesn't work on loops at all, and it's just that their loop unroller stage (which runs before it) will unroll loops of less than 10 iterations.

DannyBee• 13 years ago

Yes, which is kinda sad. both GCC and LLVM do it as a result of computing scalar evolutions for the variables, and then instantiating the final values after the loop.

There are certain calculations both will bail on due to solving cost (rather than inability to solve), but otherwise ...

Optimizing C++ Code: Dead Code Elimination

Related Stories