Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Why does this code generate much more assembly than equivalent C++/Clang? [closed]

I wrote a simple C++ function in order to check compiler optimization:

bool f1(bool a, bool b) {
    return !a || (a && b);
}

After that I checked the equivalent in Rust:

fn f1(a: bool, b: bool) -> bool {
    !a || (a && b)
}

I used godbolt to check the assembler output.

The result of the C++ code (compiled by clang with -O3 flag) is following:

f1(bool, bool):                                # @f1(bool, bool)
    xor     dil, 1
    or      dil, sil
    mov     eax, edi
    ret

And the result of Rust equivalent is much longer:

example::f1:
  push rbp
  mov rbp, rsp
  mov al, sil
  mov cl, dil
  mov dl, cl
  xor dl, -1
  test dl, 1
  mov byte ptr [rbp - 3], al
  mov byte ptr [rbp - 4], cl
  jne .LBB0_1
  jmp .LBB0_3
.LBB0_1:
  mov byte ptr [rbp - 2], 1
  jmp .LBB0_4
.LBB0_2:
  mov byte ptr [rbp - 2], 0
  jmp .LBB0_4
.LBB0_3:
  mov al, byte ptr [rbp - 4]
  test al, 1
  jne .LBB0_7
  jmp .LBB0_6
.LBB0_4:
  mov al, byte ptr [rbp - 2]
  and al, 1
  movzx eax, al
  pop rbp
  ret
.LBB0_5:
  mov byte ptr [rbp - 1], 1
  jmp .LBB0_8
.LBB0_6:
  mov byte ptr [rbp - 1], 0
  jmp .LBB0_8
.LBB0_7:
  mov al, byte ptr [rbp - 3]
  test al, 1
  jne .LBB0_5
  jmp .LBB0_6
.LBB0_8:
  test byte ptr [rbp - 1], 1
  jne .LBB0_1
  jmp .LBB0_2

I also tried with -O option but the output is empty (deleted unused function).

I intentionally am NOT using any library in order to keep output clean. Please notice that both clang and rustc use LLVM as a backend. What explains this huge output difference? And if it is only disabled-optimize-switch problem, how can I see optimized output from rustc?

like image 786
Mariusz Jaskółka Avatar asked Aug 08 '17 07:08

Mariusz Jaskółka


People also ask

Why is Clang faster than GCC?

GCC's PCH mechanism (which is just a dump of the compiler memory image) is related, but is architecturally only able to read the dump back into the exact same executable as the one that produced it (it is not a structured format). Clang is much faster and uses far less memory than GCC.

Is Clang faster than GCC?

While Clang has historically been faster than GCC at compiling, the output quality has lagged behind. As of 2014, performance of Clang-compiled programs lagged behind performance of the GCC-compiled program, sometimes by large factors (up to 5.5x), replicating earlier reports of slower performance.

What is the difference between Clang and GCC?

GCC supports more traditional languages than Clang and LLVM, such as Ada, Fortran, and Go. GCC supports more less-popular architectures, and supported RISC-V earlier than Clang and LLVM. GCC supports more language extensions and more assembly language features than Clang and LLVM.

What is difference between Clang and clang ++?

clang and clang++ on most systems are the same executable. One is merely a symbolic link to the other. The program checks to see what name it is invoked under, and: for clang , compiles code as C.


1 Answers

Compiling with the compiler flag -O (and with an added pub), I get this output (Link to Godbolt):

push    rbp
mov     rbp, rsp
xor     dil, 1
or      dil, sil
mov     eax, edi
pop     rbp
ret

A few things:

  • Why is it still longer than the C++ version?

    The Rust version is exactly three instructions longer:

    push    rbp
    mov     rbp, rsp
    [...]
    pop     rbp
    

    These are instructions to manage the so called frame pointer or base pointer (rbp). This is mainly required to get nice stack traces. If you disable it for the C++ version via -fno-omit-frame-pointer, you get the same result. Note that this uses g++ instead of clang++ since I haven't found a comparable option for the clang compiler.

  • Why doesn't Rust omit frame pointer?

    Actually, it does. But Godbolt adds an option to the compiler to preserve frame pointer. You can read more about why this is done here. If you compile your code locally with rustc -O --crate-type=lib foo.rs --emit asm -C "llvm-args=-x86-asm-syntax=intel", you get this output:

    f1:
        xor dil, 1
        or  dil, sil
        mov eax, edi
        ret
    

    Which is exactly the output of your C++ version.

    You can "undo" what Godbolt does by passing -C debuginfo=0 to the compiler.

  • Why -O instead of --release?

    Godbolt uses rustc directly instead of cargo. The --release flag is a flag for cargo. To enable optimizations on rustc, you need to pass -O or -C opt-level=3 (or any other level between 0 and 3).

like image 53
Lukas Kalbertodt Avatar answered Sep 29 '22 21:09

Lukas Kalbertodt