Optimization in GCC | Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7269?

page=0,1

Username/Email: Password: Login

Register | Forgot your password?

Optimization in GCC
Jan 26, 2005 By M. Tim Jones (/user/801462)
in

Here's what the O options mean in GCC, why some

optimizations aren't optimal after all and how you can make
specialized optimization choices for your application.

Architecture Specification

The optimizations discussed thus far can yield

significant improvements in software performance
and object size, but specifying the target
architecture also can yield meaningful benefits. (/issue/131)
The -march option of gcc allows the CPU type to be
specified (Table 2). From Issue #131
March 2005 (/issue/131)
Table 2. x86 Architectures

Target CPU Types -march= Type

i386 DX/SX/CX/EX/SL i386
i486 DX/SX/DX2/SL/SX2/DX4 i486
487 i486
Pentium pentium
Pentium MMX pentium-mmx
Pentium Pro pentiumpro
Pentium II pentium2
Celeron pentium2
Pentium III pentium3
Pentium 4 pentium4
Via C3 c3
Winchip 2 winchip2
Winchip C6-2 winchip-c6
AMD K5 i586
AMD K6 k6
AMD K6 II k6-2
AMD K6 III k6-3
AMD Athlon athlon
AMD Athlon 4 athlon
AMD Athlon XP/MP athlon
AMD Duron athlon
AMD Tbird athlon-tbird

The default architecture is i386. GCC runs on all other i386/x86 architectures, but it
can result in degraded performance on more recent processors. If you're concerned
about portability of an image, you should compile it with the default. If you're more
interested in performance, pick the architecture that matches your own.

1 of 5 12/28/2010 4:44 PM
Optimization in GCC | Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7269?page=0,1

Let's now look at an example of how performance can be improved by focusing on

the actual target. Let's build a simple test application that performs a bubble sort
over 10,000 elements. The elements in the array have been reversed to force the
worst-case scenario. The build and timing process is shown in Listing 1.

Listing 1. Effects of Architecture Specification on a Simple Application

[mtj@camus]$ gcc -o sort sort.c -O2

[mtj@camus]$ time ./sort

real 0m1.036s
user 0m1.030s
sys 0m0.000s
[mtj@camus]$ gcc -o sort sort.c -O2 -march=pentium2
[mtj@camus]$ time ./sort

real 0m0.799s
user 0m0.790s
sys 0m0.010s
[mtj@camus]$

By specifying the architecture, in this case a 633MHz Celeron, the compiler can
generate instructions for the particular target as well as enable other optimizations
available only to that target. As shown in Listing 1, by specifying the architecture we
see a time benefit of 237ms (23% improvement).

Although Listing 1 shows an improvement in speed, the drawback is that the image is
slightly larger. Using the size command (Listing 2), we can identify the sizes of the
various sections of the image.

Listing 2. Size Change of the Application from Listing 1

[mtj@camus]$ gcc -o sort sort.c -O2

[mtj@camus]$ size sort
text data bss dec hex filename
842 252 4 1098 44a sort
[mtj@camus]$ gcc -o sort sort.c -O2 -march=pentium2
[mtj@camus]$ size sort
text data bss dec hex filename
870 252 4 1126 466 sort
[mtj@camus]$

From Listing 2, we can see that the instruction size (text section) of the image
increased by 28 bytes. But in this example, it's a small price to pay for the speed
benefit.

Math Unit Optimizations

Some specialized optimizations require explicit definition by the developer. These

optimizations are specific to the i386 and x86 architectures. A math unit, for one,
can be specified, although in many cases it is automatically defined based on the
specification of a target architecture. Possible units for the -mfpmath= option are
shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Math Unit Optimizations

Option Description
387 Standard 387 Floating Point Coprocessor
sse Streaming SIMD Extensions (Pentium III, Athlon 4/XP/MP)
sse2 Streaming SIMD Extensions II (Pentium 4)

The default choice is -mfpmath=387. An experimental option is to specify both sse

2 of 5 12/28/2010 4:44 PM
Optimization in GCC | Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7269?page=0,1

and 387 (-mfpmath=sse,387), which attempts to use both units.

______________________

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

hi, follow the "Listing 3. (/article/7269#comment-356795)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 20:58.

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

% cumulative self self total

time seconds seconds calls Ts/call Ts/call name

single optimization flag without level (/article/7269#comment-349787)

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:36.

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

In current versions of GCC it is incorrect ( http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#optimization-options

(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#optimization-options) ). Single optimization flag without optimization level doesn't work.
I don't know what about old versions.

gcc 4.2.3 vs visual c 2005 (/article/7269#comment-321862)

Submitted by nanjil (not verified) on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 16:52.

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.

now the visual c code is 2x faster than gcc.

i did not expect that large a difference; it is HUGE!!

am i missin gsomehting or anybody else has noticed similar thing?

3 of 5 12/28/2010 4:44 PM
Optimization in GCC | Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7269?page=0,1

visual c++ optimizations (/article/7269#comment-333239)

Submitted by Anonymous (http://corporatedrones.wordpress.com) (not verified) on Thu, 02/12/2009 -
06:47.

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

Detailed article, that is great! (/article/7269#comment-283146)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/09/2007 - 16:57.

You wrote very detailedly!

It is really useful for me right now since I am doing my thesis work on optimization under Linux. Thank
your so much!

Someone should write some (/article/7269#comment-193325)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 11:57.

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)
could be written.

EG: no point in benchmarking if we should use:

gcc -O2 -O3 code.c -- One disables the other

gcc -fno-gcse SSE2_code.c

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.

Just a thought ...

Looks like you have a good (/article/7269#comment-196321)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 12:32.

Looks like you have a good project to setup now.

Got Table? (/article/7269#comment-128874)

Submitted by Anonymous (http://www.screwylizardracing.com) (not verified) on Sun, 02/05/2006 - 18:08.

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 (/article/7269#comment-133643)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 03/30/2006 - 02:58.

try clicking on it

-O versus -O0 (/article/7269#comment-15123)

4 of 5 12/28/2010 4:44 PM
Optimization in GCC | Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7269?page=0,1

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/02/2005 - 12:19.

Minor comment -- -O defaults to -O1, not to -O0.

5 of 5 12/28/2010 4:44 PM