Say I have a loop that looks like this:
for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
/* Do something computationally expensive */
if (i < 200 && !(i%20)) {
/* Do something else */
}
}
wherein some trivial task gets stuck behind an if-statement that only runs a handful of times. I've always heard that "if-statements in loops are slow!" So, in the hopes of (marginally) increased performance, I split the loops apart into:
for(int i = 0; i < 200; i++) {
/* Do something computationally expensive */
if (!(i%20)) {
/* Do something else */
}
}
for(int i = 200; i < 10000; i++) {
/* Do something computationally expensive */
}
Will gcc (with the appropriate flags, like -O3) automatically break the one loop into two, or does it only unroll to decrease the number of iterations?
Since loop unrolling is a tradeoff between code size and speed, the effectiveness of loop unrolling is highly dependent on the loop unrolling factor, that is, the number of times the loop is unrolled. As the factor increases, code size increases, leading to potential issues with the front end, such as icache misses.
With -funroll-loops the compiler heuristically decides which loops to unroll. If you want to force unrolling you can use -funroll-all-loops , but it usually makes the code run slower.
Why not just disassemble the program and see for yourself? But here we go. This is the testprogram:
int main() {
int sum = 0;
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
if (i < 200 && !(i%20)) {
sum += 0xC0DE;
}
sum += 0xCAFE;
}
printf("%d\n", sum);
return 0;
}
and this is the interesting part of the disassembled code compiled with gcc 4.3.3 and -o3:
0x08048404 <main+20>: xor ebx,ebx
0x08048406 <main+22>: push ecx
0x08048407 <main+23>: xor ecx,ecx
0x08048409 <main+25>: sub esp,0xc
0x0804840c <main+28>: lea esi,[esi+eiz*1+0x0]
0x08048410 <main+32>: cmp ecx,0xc7
0x08048416 <main+38>: jg 0x8048436 <main+70>
0x08048418 <main+40>: mov eax,ecx
0x0804841a <main+42>: imul esi
0x0804841c <main+44>: mov eax,ecx
0x0804841e <main+46>: sar eax,0x1f
0x08048421 <main+49>: sar edx,0x3
0x08048424 <main+52>: sub edx,eax
0x08048426 <main+54>: lea edx,[edx+edx*4]
0x08048429 <main+57>: shl edx,0x2
0x0804842c <main+60>: cmp ecx,edx
0x0804842e <main+62>: jne 0x8048436 <main+70>
0x08048430 <main+64>: add ebx,0xc0de
0x08048436 <main+70>: add ecx,0x1
0x08048439 <main+73>: add ebx,0xcafe
0x0804843f <main+79>: cmp ecx,0x2710
0x08048445 <main+85>: jne 0x8048410 <main+32>
0x08048447 <main+87>: mov DWORD PTR [esp+0x8],ebx
0x0804844b <main+91>: mov DWORD PTR [esp+0x4],0x8048530
0x08048453 <main+99>: mov DWORD PTR [esp],0x1
0x0804845a <main+106>: call 0x8048308 <__printf_chk@plt>
So as we see, for this particular example, no it does not. We have only one loop starting at main+32 and ending at main+85. If you've got problems reading the assembly code ecx = i; ebx = sum.
But still your mileage may vary - who knows what heuristics are used for this particular case, so you'll have to compile the code you've got in mind and see how longer/more complicated computations influence the optimizer.
Though on any modern CPU the branch predictor will do pretty good on such easy code, so you won't see much performance losses in either case. What's the performance loss of maybe a handful mispredictions if your computation intense code needs billions of cycles?
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With