Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Optimization in GCC-1
Optimization in GCC-1
Optimization in GCC-1
com/article/7269
Optimization in GCC
Jan 26, 2005 By M. Tim Jones (/user/801462)
in
Let's first look at how GCC categorizes optimizations and how a developer can
control which are used and, sometimes more important, which are not. A large
variety of optimizations are provided by GCC. Most are categorized into one of three
levels, but some are provided at multiple levels. Some optimizations reduce the size
of the resulting machine code, while others try to create code that is faster,
potentially increasing its size. For completeness, the default optimization level is
zero, which provides no optimization at all. This can be explicitly specified with
option -O or -O0.
Level 1 (-O1)
(/files/linuxjournal.com/linuxjournal/articles/072/7269/7269t1.jpg)
Table 1. GCC optimizations and the levels at which they are enabled.
1 of 4 12/28/2010 4:44 PM
Optimization in GCC | Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7269
Any optimization can be enabled outside of any level simply by specifying its name
with the -f prefix, as:
We also could enable level 1 optimization and then disable any particular
optimization using the -fno- prefix, like this:
This command would enable the first level of optimization and then specifically
disable the defer-pop optimization.
Level 2 (-O2)
The second level of optimization performs all other supported optimizations within
the given architecture that do not involve a space-speed trade-off, a balance between
the two objectives. For example, loop unrolling and function inlining, which have the
effect of increasing code size while also potentially making the code faster, are not
performed. The second level is enabled as:
Table 1 shows the level -O2 optimizations. The level -O2 optimizations include all of
the -O1 optimizations, plus a large number of others.
The special optimization level (-Os or size) enables all -O2 optimizations that do not
increase code size; it puts the emphasis on size over speed. This includes all
second-level optimizations, except for the alignment optimizations. The alignment
optimizations skip space to align functions, loops, jumps and labels to an address
that is a multiple of a power of two, in an architecture-dependent manner. Skipping
to these boundaries can increase performance as well as the size of the resulting code
and data spaces; therefore, these particular optimizations are disabled. The size
optimization level is enabled as:
Level 3 (-O3)
The third and highest level enables even more optimizations (Table 1) by putting
emphasis on speed over size. This includes optimizations enabled at -O2 and
rename-register. The optimization inline-functions also is enabled here, which can
increase performance but also can drastically increase the size of the object,
depending upon the functions that are inlined. The third level is enabled as:
Although -O3 can produce fast code, the increase in the size of the image can have
adverse effects on its speed. For example, if the size of the image exceeds the size of
the available instruction cache, severe performance penalties can be observed.
Therefore, it may be better simply to compile at -O2 to increase the chances that the
image fits in the instruction cache.
______________________
2 of 4 12/28/2010 4:44 PM
Optimization in GCC | Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7269
Comments
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
hi, follow the "Listing 3. Simple Example of gprof" but when using -O or -O2, the profile is "Flat
profile".So how to resoult it?
my step is:
1: gcc -o test_optimization test_optimization.c -pg -march=i386
2: ./test_optimization
3: gprof --no-graph -b ./test_optimization gmon.out
4: the result is:
Flat profile:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
no time accumulated
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls Ts/call Ts/call name
0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 factorial
,
if add -O2 the result is:
Flat profile:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
no time accumulated
Any optimization can be enabled outside of any level simply by specifying its name with the -f prefix, as:
gcc -fdefer-pop -o test test.c
hello:
I just compiled a code under gcc cygwin and visual c 2005 in a lpatop with dula core intel processor.
The debuggable gcc code was about 2x times than faster than visual c++ debuggable code
however the situation reversed when i used O3 optimization in gcc and "release" optimization in visual c.
apparentely, MSVC uses a few insecure optimizations counting that the developer created a
secure code. Probably thats why its debug build is slower.
I've seen lots of situations where gcc code gives a error right away, and promptly showing
me and bug and MSVC happily executing a code until it finally stumble upon a non-static field of a class and
finally giving a error. For me , this is simple misleading and thats why I prefer gcc
Someone should write some "C" code and a few scripts that will enable / disable every compiler option
and then print out which options worked best for _your_ particular system.
A benchmark that would specifically test each option (as opposed to using a single benchmark, and huge)
3 of 4 12/28/2010 4:44 PM
Optimization in GCC | Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7269
could be written.
Benchmarks need to have a 'large' effect on the option that is being switched.
This could be ran overnight (or on multiple machines, each doing part of the testing) and results provided on a web page
somewhere.
Experts could put in thier two cents and a wiki of snipperts could
be fed into a code compilator (not compiler, just a bunch of scripts) that would compilate all the snippets and produce a
final program to be compiled on many different machines.
This way we could figure out that if we had such-and-such a system then "how-often" (what % of the time) would we
simply be better off
to use a particular option and when is it more likely based on that TYPE of program we are running (wordprocessor vs.
MultiMedia app).
EG: If you have a Pentium is is ALWAYS (or should be if gcc is correct) best to use the -march=pentium option - BUT - it
is NOT always best to use "-fcrossjumping" (though it _could_ be for certain applications).
The output of all this could simply be a half dozen command line choices for each processor - including a "general purpose
'best'" setting and a "quick compile with great optimization" setting (for intermediate builds).
This is something that a few dozen people need to work on to get the ball rolling and then the rest of us need to pitch in and
compile the resulting test scripts to check for errors. With everyone's help we should have the so-called answer(S) to
"which compilation options should I use for machine-X when compiling applcation=category Y.
Where can I get a readable copy of Table 1? The copy here is too small to read, and can't be enlarged.
try clicking on it
4 of 4 12/28/2010 4:44 PM