From: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Taral <taralx(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ANSI-strict pointer aliasing rules |
Date: | 2006-04-27 14:43:59 |
Message-ID: | 20060427144359.GA26734@mark.mielke.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:52:42PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > Next time we have this discussion I wish someone would actually document
> > the performance differences. IIRC most of what I have seen makes it at
> > best marginal.
> I can imagine there are cases where the performance difference is
> nontrivial. Take this (somewhat contrived) example:
> int *i;
> char *c;
> while( *i < BIG_NUMBER )
> *i += *c;
> With strict aliasing, the compiler need only load *c once, without it
> needs to load it each time through the loop because it has to consider
> the possibility that 'i' and 'c' point to the same memory location.
> PostgreSQL doesn't actually have loops of this kind so it's not
> something we need worry about. And you can acheive all the benefits by
> ...
PostgreSQL might not - however PostgreSQL does use GLIBC, which does have
inlined or preprocessor defined code.
I haven't done the timings myself - but I think the optimization would
in theory apply to wider code than just the above. *c doesn't need to
be constant. It can be moving, as would be in the case of an strcpy()
or memcpy() implementation. As you pointed out, such things as
auto-vectorization become impossible if it cannot guarantee that the
data is different. The aliasing rules are one part, the 'restrict'
keyword is the more important part I would imagine. Not dissimilar to
the C compiler auto-assigning variables into registers, but allowing
for the designer to hint using the 'register' keyword.
In the modern day, I see fewer and fewer people using 'register', as
not only does the compiler tend to get it right, but the compiler
may actually do a better job. I could see the same thing being
true of auto-detect using aliasing rules vs 'restrict' keyword usage.
Even if it was only 1% - 2%. Isn't it worth it? :-) Especially for a
practice, that under existing code, has implementation defined
semantics. It might not work in the future, or with a new optimizer
mode that comes out, or a new platform...
Cheers,
mark
--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-27 14:49:02 | Re: ANSI-strict pointer aliasing rules |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-27 14:39:41 | Re: ANSI-strict pointer aliasing rules |