Tuesday, December 23, 2008

 

gcc is smarter than you

gcc is pretty clever. Consider the following C program:

#include <stdio.h>  /* printf() */

int factorial(int n) {
   return n == 0 ? 1 : n * factorial(n - 1);
}

int main() {
   int n = 10;

   printf("factorial(%d) = %d\n", n, factorial(n));

   return 0;
}

On my version of gcc (4.3.2 on debian testing), when compiled with no optimizaitons, or -O1, it generates code for factorial() like you'd expect, using a recursive call to compute the value. But on -O2, it does something interesting: It compiles down to a tight loop:

    factorial:
   .LFB13:
           testl   %edi, %edi
           movl    $1, %eax
           je  .L3
           .p2align 4,,10
           .p2align 3
   .L4:
           imull   %edi, %eax
           subl    $1, %edi
           jne .L4
   .L3:
           rep
           ret

Pretty impressive. The recursive call (not even tail-recursive) has been completely eliminated, so factorial now uses O(1) stack space instead of O(N). And although I have only very superficial knowledge of x86 assembly (actually AMD64 in this case, but I don't think any of the AMD64 extensions are being used above), I doubt that you could write a better version by hand. But what really blew my mind was the code that it generated on -O3. The implementation of factorial stayed the same. But main() changed:

    main:
   .LFB14:
           subq    $8, %rsp
   .LCFI0:
           movl    $3628800, %edx
           movl    $10, %esi
           movl    $.LC0, %edi
           xorl    %eax, %eax
           call    printf
           xorl    %eax, %eax
           addq    $8, %rsp
           ret

See the "movl $3628800, %edx" line? gcc is pre-computing factorial(10) at compile-time. It doesn't even call factorial(). Incredible. My hat is off to the gcc development team.

Of course, all the usual disclaimers apply, this is just a toy example, premature optimization is the root of all evil, etc, etc, but it illustrates that compilers are often smarter than you think. If you think you can do a better job by hand, you're almost certainly wrong.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?