Pass by value faster than pass by reference

Question

I made a simple program in c++ to compare performance between two approaches - pass by value and pass by reference. Actually pass by value performed better than pass by reference.

The conclusion should be that passing by value require fewer clock-cycles (instructions)

I would be really glad if someone could explain in detail why pass by value require fewer clock-cycles.

#include <iostream> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h>  using namespace std;  void function(int *ptr); void function2(int val);  int main() {     int nmbr = 5;     clock_t start, stop;    start = clock();    for (long i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {        function(&nmbr);        //function2(nmbr);    }    stop = clock();     cout << "time: " << stop - start;     return 0; }  /** * pass by reference */ void function(int *ptr) {     *ptr *= 5; }  /** * pass by value */ void function2(int val) {    val *= 5; } 

Answer 1

A good way to find out why there are any differences is to check the disassembly. Here are the results I got on my machine with Visual Studio 2012.

With optimization flags, both functions generate the same code:

009D1270 57                   push        edi   009D1271 FF 15 D4 30 9D 00    call        dword ptr ds:[9D30D4h]   009D1277 8B F8                mov         edi,eax   009D1279 FF 15 D4 30 9D 00    call        dword ptr ds:[9D30D4h]   009D127F 8B 0D 48 30 9D 00    mov         ecx,dword ptr ds:[9D3048h]   009D1285 2B C7                sub         eax,edi   009D1287 50                   push        eax   009D1288 E8 A3 04 00 00       call        std::operator<<<std::char_traits<char> > (09D1730h)   009D128D 8B C8                mov         ecx,eax   009D128F FF 15 2C 30 9D 00    call        dword ptr ds:[9D302Ch]   009D1295 33 C0                xor         eax,eax   009D1297 5F                   pop         edi   009D1298 C3                   ret   

This is basically equivalent to:

int main () {     clock_t start, stop ;     start = clock () ;     stop = clock () ;     cout << "time: " << stop - start ;     return 0 ; } 

Without optimization flags, you will probably get different results.

function (no optimizations):

00114890 55                   push        ebp   00114891 8B EC                mov         ebp,esp   00114893 81 EC C0 00 00 00    sub         esp,0C0h   00114899 53                   push        ebx   0011489A 56                   push        esi   0011489B 57                   push        edi   0011489C 8D BD 40 FF FF FF    lea         edi,[ebp-0C0h]   001148A2 B9 30 00 00 00       mov         ecx,30h   001148A7 B8 CC CC CC CC       mov         eax,0CCCCCCCCh   001148AC F3 AB                rep stos    dword ptr es:[edi]   001148AE 8B 45 08             mov         eax,dword ptr [ptr]   001148B1 8B 08                mov         ecx,dword ptr [eax]   001148B3 6B C9 05             imul        ecx,ecx,5   001148B6 8B 55 08             mov         edx,dword ptr [ptr]   001148B9 89 0A                mov         dword ptr [edx],ecx   001148BB 5F                   pop         edi   001148BC 5E                   pop         esi   001148BD 5B                   pop         ebx   001148BE 8B E5                mov         esp,ebp   001148C0 5D                   pop         ebp   001148C1 C3                   ret  

function2 (no optimizations)

00FF4850 55                   push        ebp   00FF4851 8B EC                mov         ebp,esp   00FF4853 81 EC C0 00 00 00    sub         esp,0C0h   00FF4859 53                   push        ebx   00FF485A 56                   push        esi   00FF485B 57                   push        edi   00FF485C 8D BD 40 FF FF FF    lea         edi,[ebp-0C0h]   00FF4862 B9 30 00 00 00       mov         ecx,30h   00FF4867 B8 CC CC CC CC       mov         eax,0CCCCCCCCh   00FF486C F3 AB                rep stos    dword ptr es:[edi]   00FF486E 8B 45 08             mov         eax,dword ptr [val]   00FF4871 6B C0 05             imul        eax,eax,5   00FF4874 89 45 08             mov         dword ptr [val],eax   00FF4877 5F                   pop         edi   00FF4878 5E                   pop         esi   00FF4879 5B                   pop         ebx   00FF487A 8B E5                mov         esp,ebp   00FF487C 5D                   pop         ebp   00FF487D C3                   ret   

Why is pass by value faster (in the no optimization case)?

Well, function() has two extra mov operations. Let's take a look at the first extra mov operation:

001148AE 8B 45 08             mov         eax,dword ptr [ptr]   001148B1 8B 08                mov         ecx,dword ptr [eax]   001148B3 6B C9 05             imul        ecx,ecx,5 

Here we are dereferencing the pointer. In function2 (), we already have the value, so we avoid this step. We first move the address of the pointer into register eax. Then we move the value of the pointer into register ecx. Finally, we multiply the value by five.

Let's look at the second extra mov operation:

001148B3 6B C9 05             imul        ecx,ecx,5   001148B6 8B 55 08             mov         edx,dword ptr [ptr]   001148B9 89 0A                mov         dword ptr [edx],ecx  

Now we are moving backwards. We have just finished multiplying the value by 5, and we need to place the value back into the memory address.

Because function2 () does not have to deal with referencing and dereferencing a pointer, it gets to skip these two extra mov operations.

Answer 2

Overhead with passing by reference:

• each access needs a dereference, i.e., there is one more memory read

Overhead with passing by value:

• the value needs to be copied on stack or into registers

For small objects, such as an integer, passing by value will be faster. For bigger objects (for example a large structure), the copying would create too much overhead so passing by reference will be faster.