Slashdot Mirror
Arrays vs Pointers in C?
UOZaphod asks: "A recent sub-discussion on Slashdot (in which, I confess, I was involved) piqued my curiosity because of several comments made about C compiler optimizations. I was informed that said optimizations have made it so that indexing an array with the [] operator is just as fast as using an incremented pointer. When the goal is maximum performance across multiple CPU architectures, can one always assume that this is true?"
"Here are my own thoughts on the issue:
For discussion purposes, I present the following two equivalent functions which reverse the contents of a string. Note that these code fragments are straight C, and do not account for MBCS or Unicode.
The first function uses array indexing:
Arguments have been made that the compiler will optimize the first example using register indexing built into the CPU instruction set, so that it runs just as fast as the pointer version.
My argument is that one cannot assume, in a multi-architecture environment, that such optimizations will always be available. Semantically, the expression array[index] must always be expanded to *(array + index) when the index is variable. In other words, the expression cannot be reduced further, because the value of the index is unknown at run time.
Granted, when I compiled the above examples on an x86 machine, the resulting assembly for each of the two functions ended up looking very similar. In both cases, I enabled full compiler optimization (Pentium Pro). I will present just the inner loop for each function...
The array function:
I'd certainly be interested in hearing more discussion on the matter, accompanied by examples and references."
For discussion purposes, I present the following two equivalent functions which reverse the contents of a string. Note that these code fragments are straight C, and do not account for MBCS or Unicode.
The first function uses array indexing:
void reversestring_array(char *str)The second function uses pointers:
{int head, tail;}
char temp;
if (!str) return;
tail = strlen(str) - 1;
for (head = 0; head < tail; ++head, --tail)
{temp = str[tail];}
str[tail] = str[head];
str[head] = temp;
void reversestring_pointer(char *str)While there are obvious optimizations that could be done for both functions, I wanted to keep them as simple and semantically similar as possible.
{char *phead, *ptail, temp;}
if (!str) return;
ptail = str + strlen(str) - 1;
for (phead = str; phead < ptail; ++phead,--ptail)
{temp = *ptail;}
*ptail = *phead;
*phead = temp;
Arguments have been made that the compiler will optimize the first example using register indexing built into the CPU instruction set, so that it runs just as fast as the pointer version.
My argument is that one cannot assume, in a multi-architecture environment, that such optimizations will always be available. Semantically, the expression array[index] must always be expanded to *(array + index) when the index is variable. In other words, the expression cannot be reduced further, because the value of the index is unknown at run time.
Granted, when I compiled the above examples on an x86 machine, the resulting assembly for each of the two functions ended up looking very similar. In both cases, I enabled full compiler optimization (Pentium Pro). I will present just the inner loop for each function...
The array function:
forloop:The pointer function:
mov bl,byte ptr [esi+edx]
mov al,byte ptr [ecx+edx]
mov byte ptr [ecx+edx],bl
mov byte ptr [esi+edx],al
inc esi
dec ecx
cmp esi,ecx
jl forloop
forloop:While this example appears to prove the claim that compiler optimizations eliminate the differences between array and pointer usage, I wonder if it would still be true with more complicated code, or when indexing larger structures.
mov bl,byte ptr [ecx]
mov dl,byte ptr [eax]
mov byte ptr [eax],bl
mov byte ptr [ecx],dl
inc ecx
dec eax
cmp ecx,eax
jb forloop
I'd certainly be interested in hearing more discussion on the matter, accompanied by examples and references."
For any real programming task, the question has to be: why do you care baout that? Is it, specifically, a bottleneck in your code as detected with profiling tools?
If it isn't, then don't wank around optimizing for single cycles on a machine that probably bleeds off a million cycles every time you raise a window.
...and they want their arrays, pointers and C back.
Back in the day, we all learned about this because a compiler construction course was required for a comp sci degree.
These types of opimizations are virtually pointless on modern machines. The increased readability and lower likelihood of programming errors on the array option far outway any speed increase for the pointer option. Plus, as you noticed, the resulting assembly is basically the same. Most likely, both will run at virtually the same speed with modern compilers. Not only would the speed difference be unnoticeable, it would be utterly inconsequential.
IMHO there is no place for pointer arithmetic in modern software. If someone working for me wrote something like the second option, I would ask them to rewrite it.
You're not completely right.
First:
``int i[20] followed by int *k = i, then i[4] is the same as *(k + (4 * 4))''
You're trying to get the 5th element of the array by using an offset of 4 times 4, assuming sizeof(int) == 4. First off, don't make that assumption; always write sizeof(int) when that's what you mean. Secondly, the C compiler automatically multiplies your offset by the size of the elements, so you would have to write *(k + 4) instead.
Secondly, you're not getting the point (probably, you were misled by the headline, as I was). The question is not whether variables holding arrays are really holding pointers to the arrays (they are), but whether, say, iterating through an array by updating a pointer is faster than iterating by using an index variable as an offset. In other words, it's not whether a[0] is the same as *a, but whether while(*a) a++; is faster than while(a[i]) i++;.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I didn't see any errors in punctuation or grammar, either. I don't recall the last time I saw a post of that length which didn't confuse plural's (sic) with possessives.
... my experience has been that this matters more in the multidimensional array case than in the single dimensional array case (for those who are curious: my goal is to write algorithms which do non-trivial amounts of processing on VGA or larger video at full frame rates [>= 15Hz], any time i can make array operations faster my entire program benefits significantly). when dealing with two dimensional arrays, you can either do the addressing yourself (location [i,j] in a r x c matrix maps to [i*c+j] in a flat array). if you are clever about how you explain your indexing to the compiler, it should realize that you're passing through consecutive addresses in memory and generate code accordingly. if, on the other hand, you're doing something like A[i][j], the compiler has to generate two deref ops plus pay the cost of whatever cache misses result from using the two levels of indirection --- in this case, working with pointer / index arithmetic relative to the base address is a big win.
have you tried this with intel's c/c++ compiler or other compilers? i'd be curious to see if what you're seeing is a result of how gcc is limited in the number of optimizations it can apply directly to the parse tree because it can't assume (at that stage) a particular target machine.
Just for fun, I tried the sample code on gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20050723 (experimental), with -O3 -march=pentium-m. The loop from the array version:
L13:
movzbl -1(%ebx), %edx
movl %esi, %ecx
decl %edi
movl 8(%ebp), %eax
movb %dl, -13(%ebp)
movzbl -1(%esi,%eax), %edx
movb %dl, -1(%ebx)
decl %ebx
movzbl -13(%ebp), %edx
movb %dl, -1(%esi,%eax)
incl %esi
cmpl %ecx, %edi
jg L13
The loop from the pointer version:
L5:
movzbl 1(%esi), %edx
movl %esi, %ecx
movzbl (%ebx), %eax
movb %al, 1(%esi)
decl %esi
movb %dl, (%ebx)
incl %ebx
cmpl %ecx, %ebx
jb L5
Time to execute the array version 100,000 times on a 10,000 character string: 0m4.515s
Time to execute the pointer version 100,000 times on a 10,000 character string: 0m3.936s
So the pointer version actually generates somewhat faster code with the compiler I used on this example, which surprises me. But there's no substitute for actually testing.
Human/Ranger/Zangband
And what of STL container classes under C++?
Seriously though, there is no generalized answer. Good compilers will do what you want. Bad compilers (and there are more than you realize out there) will make lousy code.
If your target involves an environment where you might be using a more primitive compiler, or you can't predict the environment and compiler, it might be an issue. This is why code like the PNG and JPEG libs go for tight/cryptic. As well, the performance of the runtime platform (CPU, memory, bus) have bearing. In some cases, though one piece of assembly might look less efficient than the other, the sheer brute force of CPU parallelism, out of order execution and other black juju might render it meaningless.
Finally, you have to consider the cost/benefit of the situtation. Making cryptic fast code is worthwhile if you're writing some wicked FFT code or image processor main loop, where it'll run a few quadrillion times. Other places in the same codebase though, it's probably worthwhile to trade absolute performance for a bit better code readability and maintainability.
Remember, profile before optimizing. Only optimize things that will really make a significant performance difference. Rewriting the UI display loop to use pointers instead of lists is probably pointless. Heh. Pointless.
I'm a big fan of C++ STL containers now. If I _know_ a block of code is going to be a critical bottleneck, I'll use something else from the start. I've known people who coded UIs in assembly, for no good reason, and others who wrote image processing code in interpreted RAD scripting environments. I've written and optimized code (C++/C and assembly) on systems all the way back to the 6502 (yay! two 8-bit index registers!) and it's not hard, as long as you proceed sensibly and logically.
That being said, the Microsoft VC++6 compiler (still in common use today) has a terrible code generator. It fails to perform simple loop invariant hoisting operations that my old SAS/C++ compiler (Amiga, yah, I'm one of _them_...) did in 1990. VC++7/2003 and Whidbey/2005 are showing signs of being MUCH more caught-up, and the Intel and Codeplay compilers (despite Intel's AMD-phobia) are much better too.
When performance really counts, a whole new set of tools and processes come into play.
-- There is no truth. There is only Perception. To Percieve is to Exist.
Actually, most x86s have a dedicated address generation units which handle those index additions in parallel on separate logic from the main ALU. So both cases would actually run at the same speed on a modern x86.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
I personally let the compiler writers worry about this type of thing. I'd rather have my code be more readable than fast. That being said, there are many times that I switch back and forth between pointer arithmetic and array indexing within the same program. I'll primarily use the pointer arithmetic for things like simple string processing where it just leads to more compact code, and I'll use the array indexing when I have an actual bonafide array...
In any event, my point is that you should be programming in a way that is maintainable and readable; you shouldn't be worried about shaving tens of clock cycle off of such simple loops. In more complex loops, you probably will not be able to shave nearly as much time off, because your indexes won't always be sitting in a register and the data that the index points to will most likely not even fit into a register. In this case, I don't think anyone will argue with the assertion that this:
is less readable than this:
You're right, however, you're also assuming that your pointer arithmetic is faster.
Consider a 16-bit architecture with 32-bit pointers.
Using pointer arithmetic (32-bit) is slower than using an index register (16-bit) as the array index.
So stop assuming and stick with what you're comfortable with. If you prefer pointers, fine. if you prefer arrays, fine. But if you're so concerned with the speed, you'd be doing it in assembly.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I'll admit that I'm always slightly bemused by these sorts of discussions. That bemusement quickly turns to disiniterest after I realize that a lot of people are burning a lot of cycles arguing about it.
Quite frankly, your example has little relevance in the real world. The optimization you are talking about is covered by strength reduction, as others have pointed out. But that's not the point of my message. This sort of piddly optimization means almost nothing when one looks at the whole application. If this piece of code is in an inner loop that takes 90% of the application time and it proves to be the bottleneck, then one can think about taking a closer look.
We have customers that come to us all the time with just such examples. They literally tell us, "You missed an opportunity to use a register here," and we know it's important because we know the customers are serious about profiling code and finding bottlenecks. So when they come to us we are happy to look at the "piddly stuff."
I've seen all kinds of different code. They basically fall into two categories: code that the compiler can do something significant with and code the compiler has no hope of automatically optimizing in any truly meaningful way. When I say "significant" and "meaningful," I explicitly mean "not Dragon Book stuff, except for scheduling (which can provide a significant performance win)" Simple optimizations like common subexpression elimination and copy propagation are more useful at enabling other optimizations than in any cycles gained in their own right. They are important, but not to make the code run significantly faster in and of themselves.
If one writes an application that does a lot of branching and pointer chasing (say, like, a traditional compiler*) then there's not much an optimizer can do with it. The aliasing difficulties alone will kill most optimizations. It's more important to write these kinds of applications in an understandable way because that is where the programmer time is most costly.
That said, judicious use of directives for compilers that support them can go a long way toward making these kinds of codes run really fast. Think of threading a tree search, for example. But the compiler is not going to have much hope of converting such a low-level piece of code without help.
An example of code that a compiler can do really, really well on are the traditional scientific applications. Here parallelism is everything, be it data-level, thread-level or at the distributed memory level (for really big machines). In these cases the loop optimizations are orders of magnitude more important speed-wise than sequential optimization (though, as I said, sequential optimization can enable some of these loop transformations). Some of the more important loop restructuring transformations are:
When the compiler is done with these, one hardly recognizes the code anymore. :)
In my experience, the fundamental problem is that compilers are really hard to understand. People argue about what a compiler can and cannot do because they are enormously complex systems that require arcane knowledge of language standards and hardware architecture to really dig into. It's slightly less difficult to understand the broad strokes, for example, simple cases of vectorizable loops. It's a lot more difficult to understand how to parallelize a loop that compresses a sparse array into a dense one.
If there's one lesson that I like to convey to programmers, it's to not sweat the optimization details. Don't hand-optimize the code. I can tell you fro
Wow. Just wow.
No one will probably read this comment because its been a day since the OP, but I'm amazed at the quantity of people who are slamming this guy for wanting to research something that's admittedly interesting.
For starters, if the submitter is a CompSci student then he definately gets my kudos. Too many CS students are just focused on "I wanna learn C# so I can go make money!" as opposed to actually LEARNING.
Secondly, what happened to just plain geekiness of research and studying things because its fun and interesting? Does everything we do have to have some specific applicable purpose? If you say yes, you are thinking like the MBAs that always get bashed around here instead of a real nerd.
Who knows? Its unlikely, but possible that thinking about this problem somehow leads to a train of thought that solves P=NP or something.
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
I've written quite a lot of code for Photoshop plug-ins.
Since this type of code typically iterates over a few hunderd million pixels you'd think that changing such details as array vs. pointer or some other common optimalization technique would have an impact.
It does; it typically shaves about a few tenths of a second off of a 5 minute calculation.
Then again, spending that same amount of time altering the algorithm will usually increase performance in a noticable way.
Nowadays I don't bother optimizing code (usually the compiler does a better job at it anyway) but rather optimize the algorithms. Instead of opening the topic and waiting for a definitive answer on your quest for ultimate performance, you could probably have rewritten the algorithm and gained much more performance you'd ever get this way.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?