Trying to understand gcc option -fomit-frame-pointer

Question

I asked Google to give me the meaning of the gcc option -fomit-frame-pointer, which redirects me to the below statement.

-fomit-frame-pointer

Don't keep the frame pointer in a register for functions that don't need one. This avoids the instructions to save, set up and restore frame pointers; it also makes an extra register available in many functions. It also makes debugging impossible on some machines.

As per my knowledge of each function, an activation record will be created in the stack of the process memory to keep all local variables and some more information. I hope this frame pointer means the address of the activation record of a function.

In this case, what are the type of functions, for which it doesn't need to keep the frame pointer in a register? If I get this information, I will try to design the new function based on that (if possible) because if the frame pointer is not kept in registers, some instructions will be omitted in binary. This will really improve the performance noticeably in an application where there are many functions.

Answer 1

Most smaller functions don't need a frame pointer - larger functions MAY need one.

It's really about how well the compiler manages to track how the stack is used, and where things are on the stack (local variables, arguments passed to the current function and arguments being prepared for a function about to be called). I don't think it's easy to characterize the functions that need or don't need a frame pointer (technically, NO function HAS to have a frame pointer - it's more a case of "if the compiler deems it necessary to reduce the complexity of other code").

I don't think you should "attempt to make functions not have a frame pointer" as part of your strategy for coding - like I said, simple functions don't need them, so use -fomit-frame-pointer, and you'll get one more register available for the register allocator, and save 1-3 instructions on entry/exit to functions. If your function needs a frame pointer, it's because the compiler decides that's a better option than not using a frame pointer. It's not a goal to have functions without a frame pointer, it's a goal to have code that works both correctly and fast.

Note that "not having a frame pointer" should give better performance, but it's not some magic bullet that gives enormous improvements - particularly not on x86-64, which already has 16 registers to start with. On 32-bit x86, since it only has 8 registers, one of which is the stack pointer, and taking up another as the frame pointer means 25% of register-space is taken. To change that to 12.5% is quite an improvement. Of course, compiling for 64-bit will help quite a lot too.

Answer 2

This is all about the BP/EBP/RBP register on Intel platforms. This register defaults to stack segment (doesn’t need a special prefix to access stack segment).

The EBP is the best choice of register for accessing data structures, variables and dynamically allocated work space within the stack. EBP is often used to access elements on the stack relative to a fixed point on the stack rather than relative to the current TOS. It typically identifies the base address of the current stack frame established for the current procedure. When EBP is used as the base register in an offset calculation, the offset is calculated automatically in the current stack segment (i.e., the segment currently selected by SS). Because SS does not have to be explicitly specified, instruction encoding in such cases is more efficient. EBP can also be used to index into segments addressable via other segment registers.

( source - http://css.csail.mit.edu/6.858/2017/readings/i386/s02_03.htm )

Since on most 32-bit platforms, data segment and stack segment are the same, this association of EBP/RBP with the stack is no longer an issue. So is on 64-bit platforms: The x86-64 architecture, introduced by AMD in 2003, has largely dropped support for segmentation in 64-bit mode: four of the segment registers: CS, SS, DS, and ES are forced to 0. These circumstances of x86 32-bit and 64-bit platforms essentially mean that EBP/RBP register can be used, without any prefix, in the processor instructions that access memory.

So the compiler option you wrote about allows the BP/EBP/RBP to be used for other means, e.g., to hold a local variable.

By "This avoids the instructions to save, set up and restore frame pointers" is meant avoiding the following code on the entry of each function:

push ebp mov ebp, esp 

or the enter instruction, which was very useful on Intel 80286 and 80386 processors.

Also, before the function return, the following code is used:

mov esp, ebp pop ebp  

or the leave instruction.

Debugging tools may scan the stack data and use these pushed EBP register data while locating call sites, i.e., to display names of the function and the arguments in the order they have been called hierarchically.

Programmers may have questions about stack frames not in a broad term (that it is a single entity in the stack that serves just one function call and keeps return address, arguments and local variables) but in a narrow sense – when the term stack frames is mentioned in the context of compiler options. From the compiler's perspective, a stack frame is just the entry and exit code for the routine, that pushes an anchor to the stack – that can also be used for debugging and for exception handling. Debugging tools may scan the stack data and use these anchors for back-tracing, while locating call sites in the stack, i.e., to display names of the function in the same order they have been called hierarchically.

That's why it is vital to understand for a programmer what a stack frame is in terms of compiler options – because the compiler can control whether to generate this code or not.

In some cases, the stack frame (entry and exit code for the routine) can be omitted by the compiler, and the variables will directly be accessed via the stack pointer (SP/ESP/RSP) rather than the convenient base pointer (BP/ESP/RSP). Conditions for a compiler to omit the stack frames for some functions may be different, for example: (1) the function is a leaf function (i.e., an end-entity that doesn't call other functions); (2) no exceptions are used; (3) no routines are called with outgoing parameters on the stack; (4) the function has no parameters.

Omitting stack frames (entry and exit code for the routine) can make code smaller and faster. Still, they may also negatively affect the debuggers' ability to back-trace the stack's data and display it to the programmer. These are the compiler options that determine under which conditions a function should satisfy in order for the compiler to award it with the stack frame entry and exit code. For example, a compiler may have options to add such entry and exit code to functions in the following cases: (a) always, (b) never, (c) when needed (specifying the conditions).

Returning from generalities to particularities: if you use the -fomit-frame-pointer GCC compiler option, you may win on both entry and exit code for the routine, and on having an additional register (unless it is already turned on by default either itself or implicitly by other options, in this case, you are already benefiting from the gain of using the EBP/RBP register and no additional gain will be obtained by explicitly specifying this option if it is already on implicitly). Please note, however, that in 16-bit and 32-bit modes, the BP register doesn't have the ability to provide access to 8-bit parts of it like AX has (AL and AH).

Since this option, besides allowing the compiler to use EBP as a general-purpose register in optimizations, also prevents generating exit and entry code for the stack frame, which complicates the debugging – that's why the GCC documentation explicitly states (unusually emphasizing with a bold style) that enabling this option makes debugging impossible on some machines.

Please also be aware that other compiler options, related to debugging or optimization, may implicitly turn the -fomit-frame-pointer option ON or OFF.

I didn't find any official information at gcc.gnu.org about how do other options affect -fomit-frame-pointer on x86 platforms, the https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.4/gcc/Optimize-Options.html only states the following:

-O also turns on -fomit-frame-pointer on machines where doing so does not interfere with debugging.

So it is not clear from the documentation per se whether -fomit-frame-pointer will be turned on if you just compile with a single `-O' option on x86 platform. It may be tested empirically, but in this case there is no commitment from the GCC developers to not change the behavior of this option in the future without notice.

However, Peter Cordes has pointed out in comments that there is a difference for the default settings of the -fomit-frame-pointer between x86-16 platforms and x86-32/64 platforms.

This option – -fomit-frame-pointer – is also relevant to the Intel C++ Compiler 15.0, not only to the GCC:

For the Intel Compiler, this option has an alias /Oy.

Here is what Intel wrote about it:

These options determine whether EBP is used as a general-purpose register in optimizations. Options -fomit-frame-pointer and /Oy allow this use. Options -fno-omit-frame-pointer and /Oy- disallow it.

Some debuggers expect EBP to be used as a stack frame pointer, and cannot produce a stack back-trace unless this is so. The -fno-omit-frame-pointer and /Oy- options direct the compiler to generate code that maintains and uses EBP as a stack frame pointer for all functions so that a debugger can still produce a stack back-trace without doing the following:

For -fno-omit-frame-pointer: turning off optimizations with -O0 For /Oy-: turning off /O1, /O2, or /O3 optimizations The -fno-omit-frame-pointer option is set when you specify option -O0 or the -g option. The -fomit-frame-pointer option is set when you specify option -O1, -O2, or -O3.

The /Oy option is set when you specify the /O1, /O2, or /O3 option. Option /Oy- is set when you specify the /Od option.

Using the -fno-omit-frame-pointer or /Oy- option reduces the number of available general-purpose registers by 1 and can result in slightly less efficient code.

NOTE For Linux* systems: There is currently an issue with GCC 3.2 exception handling. Therefore, the Intel compiler ignores this option when GCC 3.2 is installed for C++ and exception handling is turned on (the default).

Please be aware that the above quote is only relevant for the Intel C++ 15 compiler, not to GCC.