digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 859] New: Improve compiler inlining
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (36/36) Jan 19 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Jan 19 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Jan 19 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Jan 19 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (44/44) Jun 27 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Jun 27 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/12) Jun 27 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (70/70) Jul 08 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (18/18) Jul 08 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/12) Jul 11 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Jul 11 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
Summary: Improve compiler inlining
Product: D
Version: 1.00
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
ReportedBy: digitalmars-com baysmith.com
Compiler inlining of functions gives much worse performance than manually
inlined functions (at least in some cases). In the attached example, the
performance is 6 times slower.
C:\>dmd -O -inline -release -g testinline.d
C:\>testinline.exe
compiler inlined time: 374058
manually inlined time: 61362
C:\>obj2asm testinline.obj -ctestinline.asm
See line 486 for the compiler inlined code
See line 544 for the manually inlined code
The compiler inlined code extra instructions like the following:
lea ESI,-080h[EBP]
lea EDI,-048h[EBP]
movsd
movsd
movsd
lea ESI,-074h[EBP]
lea EDI,-03Ch[EBP]
movsd
movsd
movsd
These instructions are absent in the manually inlined code, and may be the
cause of the poor performance.
--
Jan 19 2007
d-bugmail puremagic.com http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859 Created an attachment (id=92) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=92&action=view) Example to test inlining of a simple function --
Jan 19 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859 Created an attachment (id=93) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=93&action=view) Assembly code from the example --
Jan 19 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
digitalmars-com baysmith.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
type| |
--
Jan 19 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |performance
CC| |llucax gmail.com
Platform|x86 |All
Version|1.00 |D1 & D2
OS/Version|Windows |All
PDT ---
To avoid opening a new bug, I'll reuse this ancient bug report, since the
summary is pretty much the same I'll write for this.
I'm having some performance problems moving some stuff from a lower-level
C-style to a higher-lever D-style. Here is an example:
---
int find_if(bool delegate(ref int) predicate)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
if (predicate(i))
return i;
return -1;
}
int main()
{
// for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
// if (i == 99)
// return i;
// return -1;
return find_if((ref int i) { return i == 99; });
}
---
The program produced by this source executes 4 times more instructions than the
more direct (lower-level) version commented out. I would expect DMD to inline
all functions/delegates and produce the same asm for both, but that's not the
case.
This is a reduced test-case, but I'm working on improving the GC and I'm really
hitting this problem. If I use this higher-level style in the GC, a Dil run for
generating the Tango docs is 3.33 times slower than the C-ish style used by the
current GC.
So I think this is a real problem for D, it's really important to be able to
encourage people to use the higher-level D constructs.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 27 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
nfxjfg gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |nfxjfg gmail.com
Leandro Lucarella: ldc seems to inline the predicate just fine, although the
generated code is still slightly different.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 27 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859 PDT ---Leandro Lucarella: ldc seems to inline the predicate just fine, although the generated code is still slightly different.Yes, LDC is better at inlining because it doesn't use the front-end inlining code, it let the LLVM optimizer do the job instead (I think they inhibited the DMDFE inliner precisely because of this issues). This bug report is about the DMD implementation. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 27 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
bearophile_hugs eml.cc changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bearophile_hugs eml.cc
An improved version of the test program, that allows to compare dmd and ldc on
this inlining problem:
version (Tango) {
import tango.stdc.stdio: printf;
import tango.stdc.stdlib: atof;
} else {
import std.c.stdio: printf;
import std.c.stdlib: atof;
}
struct Vec3 {
float x, y, z;
}
float dot(Vec3 A, Vec3 B) {
return A.x * B.x + A.y * B.y + A.z * B.z;
}
struct Timer {
long starttime;
static long getTime() {
asm {
naked;
rdtsc;
ret;
}
}
void start() {
starttime = getTime();
}
void stop() {
long endTime = getTime();
printf("time: %lld\n", endTime - starttime);
}
}
void main() {
int n = 30_000;
Vec3 a = Vec3(atof("1.0"), atof("2.0"), atof("3.0"));
Vec3 b = Vec3(atof("4.0"), atof("5.0"), atof("6.0"));
Timer t;
float sum;
printf(" Auto inlined ");
sum = 0.0;
t.start();
for (int i; i < n; i++) {
a.x++;
a.y++;
a.z++;
sum += dot(a, b);
}
t.stop();
printf("sum: %f\n", sum);
printf("Manually inlined ");
sum = 0.0;
t.start();;
for (int i; i < n; i++) {
a.x++;
a.y++;
a.z++;
sum += a.x * b.x + a.y * b.y + a.z * b.z;
}
t.stop();
printf("sum: %f\n", sum);
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 08 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |braddr puremagic.com
Summary|Improve compiler inlining |float vector codegen after
| |inlining very different
| |from manual inlined code
---
Guys, piling more stuff into a bug report isn't a good idea. In fact, I need
to re-classify this bug since its not a problem with inlining at all. The call
to DOT in the original code _is_ being inlined. The resulting code is
different than the manually inlined version, but the code IS inlined.
While they might be the same, they're different enough right now to call them
different bugs. I just split the new report into bug 4440
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 08 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859 --- This was fixed by the changes that fixed bug 2008. This report passes static arrays as a parameter which was one of the things that caused the inliner to reject a function. I'm going to close this bug. I've opened bug 4447 to track a remaining issue regarding oddities involving the first function taking significantly longer to execute, regardless of which it is. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 11 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 11 2010