CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++
ChronoTrigger
ChronoTrigger

Reputation: 8607

Avoiding conditionals and function invocations inside a loop

I have a code that looks like this:

void function(int parameter)
{
  for( ... ) // a big loop
  {
    double a = ...;
    for( ... ) // a big loop
    {
      double b = ...;

      double value;
      if(parameter == 1)
        value = some_math_expression_1(a, b);
      else if(parameter == 2)
        value = some_math_expression_2(a, b);
      ...
    }
  }
}

The idea is that depending on the parameter I want to apply some math expression to a and b. This function is executed many times and must be fast, and I wonder if those conditional branches at each iteration can introduce an overhead that I could save.

Right now, I have written the code like this:

void function(int parameter)
{
  if(parameter == 1)
    function1();
  else if(parameter == 2)
    function2();
  else
    ...
}

So that I can apply the math expression directly if I repeat the code in every functionX(). The obvious problem is that when I want to change some piece of code I have to do it several times (I have around 10 math expressions now).

What approach could I use to avoid any overhead in function?

What if I pass a pointer to functions some_math_expression_X to function (I would change the conditionals for function invocations)?

What if I code the whole function as a macro (uf) and set the math expression as a parameter?

What if I use a template and pass the math expression as a pointer to an inline function (is this even possible)?

EDIT: Thank you for your answers. I know I can use the methods you are proposing (pointers to / array of functions, or relying on the branch predictor). However, do you have some insight about what would be better in terms of avoiding overhead? The math expressions are quite simple (something like a*b), and in addition to the loops that are long, function is also called many times (do branch predictions "survive" between calls?).

Upvotes: 5

Views: 1116

Answers (7)

rodrigo
rodrigo

Reputation: 98338

You can convert the function into a template:

void functionT<int PARAMETER>()
{
  for( ... ) // a big loop
  {
    double a = ...;
    for( ... ) // a big loop
    {
      double b = ...;

      double value;
      if(PARAMETER == 1) //Constant condition!!!
        value = some_math_expression_1(a, b);
      else if(PARAMETER == 2)  //Constant condition!!!
        value = some_math_expression_2(a, b);
      ...
    }
  }
}

Since the conditions are always true or always false, the compiler will optimize the condition tree away and leave only the real math expression. No branches and no function calls!

Now, you can use it only with constant parameters:

functionT<1>();

But not with variables:

int x = 1;
functionT<x>(); //Error

If you need that, you can make a wrapper:

void function(int parameter)
{
    switch (parameter)
    {
        case 1: functionT<1>(); break;
        case 2: functionT<2>(); break;
    }
}

Upvotes: 5

user420442
user420442

Reputation:

If all your functions have the same signature, then the simplest thing to do would be this:

void function(int parameter)
{
  double ( *fn )( double, double );

  switch( parameter )
  {
    case 1:  fn = &some_math_expression_1;  break;
    case 2:  fn = &some_math_expression_2;  break;
    ...
  }

  for( ... ) // a big loop
  {
    double a = ...;
    for( ... ) // a big loop
    {
      double b = ...;
      double value = fn( a, b );
      ...
    }
  }
}

Upvotes: 0

cheeyos
cheeyos

Reputation: 681

I think one of the most efficient ways to do this is to create an array of function pointers, and then you can directly pass the function pointer instead of just the parameter. This would save any kind of overhead that you would incur using if/switch statement in a nested loop.

As an example:

double expression_0(double a, double b) {...};
double expression_1(double a, double b) {...};

void function(double (*expression)(double, double)) {
    for (...) {
        ...
        double a = ...;
        for (...) {
            double b = ...;
            double result = (*expression)(a, b);
        }
    }
}

int main() {
    double (*fpointers[2]) (double, double);
    fpointers[0] = expression_0;
    fpointers[1] = expression_1;

    int parameter = ...;
    function(fpointers[parameter]);
}

Upvotes: 0

Wernight
Wernight

Reputation: 37600

It depends on many things but in general you may want to make it so that most of the time either the first or the second function is called consecutively. This would make modern CPU execute this quite faster (see Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?).

You could use array and function pointers but that may not speed up speed, need to try. You can use http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/doc/html/function/tutorial.html#idp59212272 to help but you don't need it for static functions.

Upvotes: 0

Salgar
Salgar

Reputation: 7775

Firstly, I would as always say that you should Benchmark/Measure how long this process takes right now, because as always, this could be premature optimization, and you might find out this isn't the part of your code that is taking a long time.

But assuming you have measured and found that this is the bottleneck in your code, there are a few things that I would do.

Firstly, the thing that is going to kill you most here (provided your math functions are sufficiently simple) is the branch prediction, as you have said. So to get rid of the branching I would create an array of function pointers, and instead of doing 

if(parameter == 1)
    function1();
if...

You can just do:

array_of_functions[parameter]();

This will get rid of all branch predicition and will increase the throughput greatly because your pipeline will not have to be flushed. The compiler also should be able to inline the functions.

Upvotes: 1

MSalters
MSalters

Reputation: 179779

Don't worry. Modern CPU's have branch predictors, and they will correctly predict the branch taken.

Upvotes: 3

Ingo
Ingo

Reputation: 36329

You could set up a constant array of function pointers, and call the function associated with parameter.

But if the math expressions are rather small, a switch() statement could be even faster.

switch (parameter) {
    case 1:
        value = math expression 1;
        break;
    case 2:
        ...
}

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions