CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++gccoptimizationconstantspurely-functional
Lou
Lou

Reputation: 4474

GCC optimization of pure functions

I am confused by the guarantees GCC makes about optimizing pure functions (from online docs):

pure

Many functions have no effects except the return value and their return value depends only on the parameters and/or global variables. (...)

Interesting non-pure functions are functions with infinite loops or those depending on volatile memory or other system resources, that may change between two consecutive calls (such as feof in a multithreading environment).

And for const:

const

Many functions do not examine any values except their arguments, and have no effects except the return value. Basically, this is just slightly more strict class than the pure attribute below, since the function is not allowed to read global memory.

Note that a function that has pointer arguments and examines the data pointed to must not be declared const. Likewise, a function that calls a non-const function usually must not be const.

So, I tried creating a function which does accept a pointer parameter, and tried marking it pure. However, I tried compiling this function using GCC online (I tried both const and pure):

typedef struct
{
    int32_t start;
    int32_t end;
}
Buffer;

inline __attribute__((pure,always_inline)) int32_t getLen(Buffer * b) 
{
    return b->end - b->start;
}

And noticed that GCC (at least the several online compiler versions I've tried):

  1. doesn't optimize calls to this function (i.e. calls it multiple times) if the passed Buffer* parameter is pointing to a global value,
  2. optimizes calls to this function (i.e. calls it only once), if the passed pointer is pointing to a local (stack) variable.
  3. both cases work the same even if I mark the function const instead of pure, but presumably const is ignored if there is a pointer argument?

This is a good thing, because a global Buffer might change by a different thread/interrupt at any time, while a local Buffer is perfectly safe for optimizations.

But I am completely confused by the remarks regarding passing pointers. Is there a place where the behavior of the GCC is explicitly defined for pure functions accepting pointer arguments?

Upvotes: 6

Views: 1472

Answers (2)

ecatmur
ecatmur

Reputation: 157334

Is there a place where the behavior of the GCC is explicitly defined for pure functions accepting pointer arguments?

The behavior is no different to pure functions that don't take pointer arguments; they can read any memory in the program, but can't write to memory or perform IO.

You've significantly confused things by writing your pure and const functions as inline; where the function body is available to the compiler at the call site it can work out for itself which operations the called function performs. The pure and const attributes are most useful where the function body is not visible since it will be defined in a separate compilation unit.

For example, consider the following collection of non-pure, pure and const functions:

__attribute__((__pure__)) int a();
__attribute__((__const__)) int b();
void c();

If we call a twice in succession, with no operation interposing, we can collapse that to a single call, since a is guaranteed to access global memory only to read it; even if another thread writes to global memory around the same time there is no way for a to communicate with that thread so the compiler can assume that the write happens before or after both calls to a:

int f() {
    int i = a();
    i += a();
    return i;  // optimized to "return a() * 2;"
}

If we call c between the calls to a we must assume that the return value of a can be affected by the call to c:

int g() {
    int i = a();
    c();
    i += a();
    return i;  // no optimization possible
}

However, if instead of the pure a we call the const b, we can collapse that to a single call, since b cannot read any memory that c might write to:

int h() {
    int i = b();
    c();
    i += b();
    return i;  // optimized to "c(); return b() * 2;"
}

Upvotes: 6

MSalters
MSalters

Reputation: 179789

"the guarantees GCC makes".

It doesn't. pure and const attributes are promises that you make to GCC.

When you make these promises, the optimizer might be able to establish non-aliasing of certain variables. But even where it can, that non-aliasing might be irrelevant to optimizations (either because it's insufficient or irrelevant). Adding pure and const won't matter then.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions