This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: G++ could optimize ASM code more

Am 09.05.2012 20:30, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
Daniel Marschall <> writes:

I did understand that the compiler used "signed" multiplication
instead of an unsigned one because char*char needs to be extended.

Maybe I am wrong, but couldn't the compiler "know" that the result
will be at least unsigned because unsigned * unsigned = unsigned ?

Well, but the rules of C say that the unsigned char values are zero-extended to int, and then they are multiplied using a signed multiplication. So the result is not unsigned. The compiler really would have to do some sort of type or value based reasoning here to determine that an unsigned multiplication would work also.


I could sucessfully do a benchmark of my code. I found out that the no-typecast-version (imull+movslq) needed 47 secs for 12 working packages, while the typecast-version (imulq) needed only 38 secs per 12 working packages. That is incredible!

Maybe you should still consider preferring imulq instead of imull+movslq ?

I wonder if GCC has an optimization which optimizes the machine code itself, without knowledge of the underlaying C code, e.g. it could eliminate unnecessary mov commands if a register is not used resp. using operations which do have lower latency. I think such an "assembler-only" optimization still can get additional performance since the rules of the underlaying programming language (e.g. the expansion to signed int) can be ignored if the end-result is the same. But I fear that this is rather a hard task and maybe not possible.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]