Why is memcmp(a, b, size)
so much faster than:
for(i = 0; i < nelements; i++) { if a[i] != b[i] return 0; } return 1;
Is memcmp a CPU instruction or something? It must be pretty deep because I got a massive speedup using memcmp
over the loop.
Most certainly, memset will be much faster than that loop. Note how you treat one character at a time, but those functions are so optimized that set several bytes at a time, even using, when available, MMX and SSE instructions.
In short: strcmp compares null-terminated C strings. strncmp compares at most N characters of null-terminated C strings. memcmp compares binary byte buffers of N bytes.
All zeroing operations that the pool allocator performs and many structure/array initializations that InitAll performs end up going through the memset function. Memset is one of the hottest functions on the operating system and is already quite optimized as a result.
memcmp
is often implemented in assembly to take advantage of a number of architecture-specific features, which can make it much faster than a simple loop in C.
GCC supports memcmp
(as well as a ton of other functions) as builtins. In some versions / configurations of GCC, a call to memcmp
will be recognized as __builtin_memcmp
. Instead of emitting a call
to the memcmp
library function, GCC will emit a handful of instructions to act as an optimized inline version of the function.
On x86, this leverages the use of the cmpsb
instruction, which compares a string of bytes at one memory location to another. This is coupled with the repe
prefix, so the strings are compared until they are no longer equal, or a count is exhausted. (Exactly what memcmp
does).
Given the following code:
int test(const void* s1, const void* s2, int count) { return memcmp(s1, s2, count) == 0; }
gcc version 3.4.4
on Cygwin generates the following assembly:
; (prologue) mov esi, [ebp+arg_0] ; Move first pointer to esi mov edi, [ebp+arg_4] ; Move second pointer to edi mov ecx, [ebp+arg_8] ; Move length to ecx cld ; Clear DF, the direction flag, so comparisons happen ; at increasing addresses cmp ecx, ecx ; Special case: If length parameter to memcmp is ; zero, don't compare any bytes. repe cmpsb ; Compare bytes at DS:ESI and ES:EDI, setting flags ; Repeat this while equal ZF is set setz al ; Set al (return value) to 1 if ZF is still set ; (all bytes were equal). ; (epilogue)
Reference:
cmpsb
instructionHighly-optimized versions of memcmp
exist in many C standard libraries. These will usually take advantage of architecture-specific instructions to work with lots of data in parallel.
In Glibc, there are versions of memcmp
for x86_64 that can take advantage of the following instruction set extensions:
sysdeps/x86_64/memcmp.S
sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/memcmp-sse4.S
sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/memcmp-ssse3.S
The cool part is that glibc will detect (at run-time) the newest instruction set your CPU has, and execute the version optimized for it. See this snippet from sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/memcmp.S
:
ENTRY(memcmp) .type memcmp, @gnu_indirect_function LOAD_RTLD_GLOBAL_RO_RDX HAS_CPU_FEATURE (SSSE3) jnz 2f leaq __memcmp_sse2(%rip), %rax ret 2: HAS_CPU_FEATURE (SSE4_1) jz 3f leaq __memcmp_sse4_1(%rip), %rax ret 3: leaq __memcmp_ssse3(%rip), %rax ret END(memcmp)
Linux does not seem to have an optimized version of memcmp
for x86_64, but it does for memcpy
, in arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S
. Note that is uses the alternatives infrastructure (arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
) for not only deciding at runtime which version to use, but actually patching itself to only make this decision once at boot-up.
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