Re: va_start without the first argument?

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: va_start without the first argument?
Date	2017-03-12 21:04 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<oa49f0$79d$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <oa1gud$79a$1@dont-email.me> <oa3g4n$egd$1@dont-email.me> <oa3mfq$3m6$1@dont-email.me> <oa3vea$39f$1@dont-email.me> <oa42ej$dms$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/03/17 19:04, BartC wrote:
> On 12/03/2017 17:13, David Brown wrote:
>> On 12/03/17 15:40, BartC wrote:
>
>>> I've done this and was hoping to use the same approach for compiling C
>>> (for x64). But it won't work because there is now no distinction between
>>> C functions which are compiled here, and C functions compiled elsewhere
>>> by another compiler.
>>
>> Sure there is - if your compiler is the one compiling a function, and
>> you know that all uses of the function are through code that you
>> compile, then you can do what you want.  This is usually the case for
>> static functions (unless you take their address and pass it outside the
>> current translation unit).
>
> Yeah, maybe. But when 99% of calls could be your own call convention,
> then it would be worth doing (and with the 1% using the ABI, the
> efficiency of those wouldn't matter). But if it's only static functions,
> and only those you can be sure can't be called by any other means ...
>
> Even then, sometimes you want to take the address of a static function.
> Then when you call via a pointer, it's not going to be easy to determine
> if an arbitrary pointer points to a static function, or a global one, or
> can be either during the course of the program. For example, you pass a
> function pointer to a function; that function won't know its provenance.
>
> Of course an implementation can choose to generate two copies of static
> functions, one of which is used only for direct internal calls. But this
> is way past the point where it would just be easier to use the official
> ABI.

This is all a matter of quality of implementation - /you/ choose.  Using 
more efficient calling conventions for local calls (static calls whose 
address is not taken) should be relatively easy.  Dealing with other 
calls is going to be a lot harder - you will likely need some sort of 
whole program optimisation or link-time code generation.

>
>>> (Not that this ABI makes things that much faster, if at all. If I take
>>> my current project and compile with gcc -O0, then the 32-bit version is
>>> 8% faster than the 64-bit, despite the latter passing parameters in
>>> registers for most functions.)
>>>
>>
>> Speed comparisons without optimisation are /always/ pointless.
>
> No, it makes it easier to compare how long things take to execute
> (rather than how long it takes /not/ to execute them as often happens
> with gcc).

Yes, speed comparisons without optimisation are /always/ pointless.  You 
can't compare the speed of two cars if you insist that they both stay in 
first gear - even if they are two models from the same manufacturer.

>
> Anyway, if I use -O3 for both, then the 32-bit version is 12% faster!
> Despite having fewer and narrower registers.

And there you have an interesting comparison.  This is Windows, I take it?

Different programs will see different gains or loses in speed here.  You 
will want to test quite a few different programs to get more general 
results.

>
>
>> And there are a variety of things that can affect the difference in
>> speed between 32-bit and 64-bit versions (even when you have allowed the
>> compiler to generate decent code by using at least -O1).  Pointers in
>> 64-bit mode are 64-bit wide - that means more cache is needed, meaning
>> more cache misses, and more memory bandwidth is needed.  For some
>> applications, the difference here can be significant.  And in Windows,
>> the aforementioned idiotic requirement of allocating stack space for the
>> arguments passed in registers means wasted time and wasted cache space
>> on every function call in 64-bit mode.
>
> The pointer one I know about (I think it cost me 5% loss of performance
> when I switched an old x64 compiler from 32- to 64-bit pointers).
>
> But how much would allocating those 32 bytes of stack cost? Bear in mind
> that probably nothing will be written to them.

Leaf functions are often quite short, and often would not need a stack 
frame at all if it were not for this extra allocation.  So you have 
extra instructions to modify the stack pointer and restore it 
afterwards, perhaps also with a frame pointer there somewhere.

>
> (It'll reduce cache capacity to a certain extent, but only as far as the
> maximum call-nesting depth, which usually isn't very much. If the
> maximum level is 30 calls deep, then we're talking 1KB in total.)
>

It all adds up.  I expect it is not a particularly big cost, but it is a 
pointless one.

Thread

va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 11:57 -0800
  Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 12:04 -0800
  Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-10 12:32 -0800
    Re: va_start without the first argument? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 15:51 -0500
    Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:36 -0800
      Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:53 -0800
        Re: va_start without the first argument? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-10 17:14 -0600
          Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 15:37 -0800
            Re: va_start without the first argument? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-10 23:12 -0600
              Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 10:29 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 11:31 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-13 18:40 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 12:31 -0700
            Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 19:53 +0100
              Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 19:05 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-11 11:56 -0800
              Re: va_start without the first argument? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-12 05:41 +0000
              Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 13:52 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 14:40 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 18:13 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 18:04 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 21:04 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 21:02 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 22:40 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-12 15:51 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-12 16:52 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-13 00:56 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-13 09:17 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 17:54 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-13 22:12 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 22:48 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 13:46 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-14 13:37 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 15:24 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 08:25 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 17:02 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 09:45 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-14 09:15 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 10:02 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2017-03-14 20:32 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-14 07:44 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 13:38 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-14 08:57 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-13 11:21 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-13 18:33 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-13 22:08 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-13 15:23 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 13:58 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-14 09:18 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-14 16:52 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-14 11:34 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-14 18:54 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 13:30 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-15 21:55 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-15 15:16 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2017-03-23 21:04 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 21:48 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-14 14:01 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 07:42 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-14 12:38 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-13 01:11 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-13 15:43 +1300
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 10:36 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-14 07:33 +1300
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 19:00 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-14 08:05 +1300
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 23:10 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-14 17:38 +1300
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 05:48 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 12:12 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-12 19:39 +0100
  Re: va_start without the first argument? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2017-03-10 20:49 +0000
    Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:41 -0800
      Re: va_start without the first argument? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 16:05 -0800
        Re: va_start without the first argument? jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 21:47 +0100
          Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 13:07 -0800
            Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 22:24 +0100
              Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 05:44 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 08:59 -0400
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 06:17 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 13:27 -0400
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 13:30 -0400
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 11:00 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 10:34 -0700
          Re: va_start without the first argument? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-12 06:00 +0000
          Re: va_start without the first argument? gordonb.gas5o@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-17 09:46 -0500
            Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-17 09:07 -0700
        Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 05:39 -0700
          Re: va_start without the first argument? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 11:40 -0700
            Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 12:01 -0700
              Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-13 23:17 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 16:15 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-14 00:26 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? kikiins@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 16:51 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-14 01:12 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 18:24 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 18:57 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-14 07:59 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 06:45 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 18:20 -0500
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-14 00:31 +0100
    Re: va_start without the first argument? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-13 16:51 +0000
  Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 19:29 +0100
  Re: va_start without the first argument? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-11 12:12 -0800
  Re: va_start without the first argument? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 05:37 -0700
    Re: va_start without the first argument? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 11:45 -0700
      Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 13:39 -0700

csiph-web