请考虑以下代码:
void error_handling();
bool method_impl();
bool method()
{
const bool res = method_impl();
if (res == false) {
error_handling();
return false;
}
return true;
}
我知道 method_impl()
会在 99.999%(是的,小数点后三位)的情况下返回 true
,但我的编译器不会。 method()
在时间消耗方面是部分关键的。
- 我是否应该重写
method()
(并降低其可读性)以确保仅当method_impl()
返回false
时才会发生跳转?如果是,怎么做? - 我应该让编译器为我完成工作吗?
- 我应该让 CPU 的分支预测为我完成这项工作吗?
最佳答案
根据其他答案的建议,我对解决方案进行了基准测试。如果您考虑对这个答案投赞成票,请也对其他答案投赞成票。
基准代码
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <string>
// solutions
#include <ctime>
// benchmak
#include <limits>
#include <random>
#include <chrono>
#include <algorithm>
#include <functional>
//
// Solutions
//
namespace
{
volatile std::time_t near_futur = -1;
void error_handling() { std::cerr << "error\n"; }
bool method_impl() { return std::time(NULL) != near_futur; }
bool method_no_builtin()
{
const bool res = method_impl();
if (res == false) {
error_handling();
return false;
}
return true;
}
bool method_builtin()
{
const bool res = method_impl();
if (__builtin_expect(res, 1) == false) {
error_handling();
return false;
}
return true;
}
bool method_builtin_incorrect()
{
const bool res = method_impl();
if (__builtin_expect(res, 0) == false) {
error_handling();
return false;
}
return true;
}
bool method_rewritten()
{
const bool res = method_impl();
if (res == true) {
return true;
} else {
error_handling();
return false;
}
}
}
//
// benchmark
//
constexpr std::size_t BENCHSIZE = 10'000'000;
class Clock
{
std::chrono::time_point<std::chrono::steady_clock> _start;
public:
static inline std::chrono::time_point<std::chrono::steady_clock> now() { return std::chrono::steady_clock::now(); }
Clock() : _start(now())
{
}
template<class DurationUnit>
std::size_t end()
{
return std::chrono::duration_cast<DurationUnit>(now() - _start).count();
}
};
//
// Entry point
//
int main()
{
{
Clock clock;
bool result = true;
for (std::size_t i = 0 ; i < BENCHSIZE ; ++i)
{
result &= method_no_builtin();
result &= method_no_builtin();
result &= method_no_builtin();
result &= method_no_builtin();
result &= method_no_builtin();
result &= method_no_builtin();
result &= method_no_builtin();
result &= method_no_builtin();
result &= method_no_builtin();
result &= method_no_builtin();
}
const double unit_time = clock.end<std::chrono::nanoseconds>() / static_cast<double>(BENCHSIZE);
std::cout << std::setw(40) << "method_no_builtin(): " << std::setprecision(3) << unit_time << " ns\n";
}
{
Clock clock;
bool result = true;
for (std::size_t i = 0 ; i < BENCHSIZE ; ++i)
{
result &= method_builtin();
result &= method_builtin();
result &= method_builtin();
result &= method_builtin();
result &= method_builtin();
result &= method_builtin();
result &= method_builtin();
result &= method_builtin();
result &= method_builtin();
result &= method_builtin();
}
const double unit_time = clock.end<std::chrono::nanoseconds>() / static_cast<double>(BENCHSIZE);
std::cout << std::setw(40) << "method_builtin(): " << std::setprecision(3) << unit_time << " ns\n";
}
{
Clock clock;
bool result = true;
for (std::size_t i = 0 ; i < BENCHSIZE ; ++i)
{
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
result &= method_builtin_incorrect();
}
const double unit_time = clock.end<std::chrono::nanoseconds>() / static_cast<double>(BENCHSIZE);
std::cout << std::setw(40) << "method_builtin_incorrect(): " << std::setprecision(3) << unit_time << " ns\n";
}
{
Clock clock;
bool result = true;
for (std::size_t i = 0 ; i < BENCHSIZE ; ++i)
{
result &= method_rewritten();
result &= method_rewritten();
result &= method_rewritten();
result &= method_rewritten();
result &= method_rewritten();
result &= method_rewritten();
result &= method_rewritten();
result &= method_rewritten();
result &= method_rewritten();
result &= method_rewritten();
}
const double unit_time = clock.end<std::chrono::nanoseconds>() / static_cast<double>(BENCHSIZE);
std::cout << std::setw(40) << "method_rewritten(): " << std::setprecision(3) << unit_time << " ns\n";
}
}
基准测试结果
g++ -std=c++14 -O2 -Wall -Wextra -Werror main.cpp
method_no_builtin(): 42.8 ns
method_builtin(): 44.4 ns
method_builtin_incorrect(): 51.4 ns
method_rewritten(): 39.3 ns
g++ -std=c++14 -O3 -Wall -Wextra -Werror main.cpp
method_no_builtin(): 32.3 ns
method_builtin(): 31.1 ns
method_builtin_incorrect(): 35.6 ns
method_rewritten(): 30.5 ns
结论
这些优化之间的差异太小,无法得出任何结论,除了:如果在为已知的更常见路径优化分支时可以找到性能增益,那么这个增益太小而不值得麻烦和可读性下降。
关于c++ - 为已知的更常见路径优化分支,我们在Stack Overflow上找到一个类似的问题: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/35938249/