[12575 ms] 

	    		Subscribe

	Newsletters

	Digital Library

	RSS

	Search: 

	 Site

	 Source Code

	Home

	Articles

	News

	Blogs

	Source Code

	Dobb's TV

	Webinars & Events

	        Sections ▼

					Home

	Articles

	News

	Blogs

	Source Code

	Dobb's TV

	Webinars & Events

			Cloud

	Mobile

	Parallel

	.NET

	JVM Languages

	C/C++

	Tools

	Design

	Testing

	Web Dev

	Jolt Awards

	        Channels ▼

					Cloud

	Mobile

	Parallel

	.NET

	JVM Languages

	C/C++

	Tools

	Design

	Testing

	Web Dev

	Jolt Awards

            Walter Bright

            Dr. Dobb's Bloggers

                	                    Bio |  Archive 

                Walter Bright

		    Tweet

			Permalink

		Increasing Compiler Speed by Over 75%

		 July 25, 2013

D is designed to be a language that is amenable to fast compilation.

I began implementing compilers on painfully slow machines like the IBM PC, so having the compiler run fast was always a big deal. It got a lot of attention, and the compilers I wrote were known for being very fast. I naturally built the techniques learned along the way into the DMD D compiler, and D itself is designed to be a language that is amenable to fast compilation.

More Insights

White Papers

				Managing Access to SaaS Applications				

				Rogue Wave Tools and Libraries for Big Data				

More >>Reports

				Hard Truths about Cloud Differences				

				Database Defenses				

More >>Webcasts

				Accelerate Cloud Computing Success with Open Standards				

				How to Create an End-to-End Enterprise Payments Hub				

More >>

This has been a big success for D, and many engineers have told me that D's compile speed was a huge factor in being seduced by D. Every big boost in compile speed has a transformative effect on the development process.

It's easy to get complacent and focus on other issues with DMD. Subtle  degradations in speed can creep in, especially with a lot of people contributing to the codebase. Compiling the D test suite was taking too much time — making that faster has a lot of leverage in improving productivity. In particular, some D code makes very heavy use of templates, and these were not compiling as fast as I'd like. The library module std.algorithm stood out.

The obvious low hanging fruit was that some templates were being instantiated 70,000 times or more. This is a problem well known among C++ compiler guys — given a template and the arguments to instantiate it, look to see if it's already been instantiated and simply point to the existing one. The lookup for this was, I'm ashamed to admit, a linear list. It's like dragging a block of concrete behind your sports car. Replacing this with a hash table netted a mere 10% improvement, I expected more. How disappointing.

My next idea revolved around the issue that templates, when instantiated, are given a string identifier that uniquely identifies them. You can see these names if you disassemble any template-using code written in C++ or D. They tend to be long, as they incorporate a "mangled" version of each and every template argument.

The thing is, an awful lot of templates are generated that never appear in the  generated code, as they are templates that produce a value or a type. These don't need generated identifiers. I switched the identifier generation to being lazy; i.e., only generated if needed by the object code generation. This also produced a perceptible improvement, but much more modest than I'd anticipated.

Time to stop guessing where the speed problems were, and start instrumenting. Time to trot out gprof, the Gnu profiler. I fired it up on the slow example, and waited. And waited, and waited, and waited. I waited overnight. It pole-axed my Ubuntu box, I had to cold boot it. The test case was so big that it plus gprof was too much. gprof slows things down a lot, so I had to cut things way down to get it to work.

The top three time-eating tasks were:

	lexing

	hash table lookups

	storage allocation

Lexing has always been the succubus leaching the cycles out of a compiler. It's written with that in mind (and so is D's grammar), and I didn't see much more oil to be pressed out of that olive.

I figured hash table lookups would be high on the list, but not that high. DMD makes heavy use of hash tables internally. The symbol tables are all hash tables, the template instantiations are (now!), etc. Looking at the code, nothing too obvious stuck out:

    if (aa)

    {

        size_t len = aa->b_length;

        size_t i = (size_t)key % len;

        aaA* e = aa->b[i];

        while (e)

        {

            if (key == e->key)

                return e->value; // found

            e = e->next;

        }

    }

    return NULL;    // not found

But there is something interesting about it — the key%len operation. Division is a notoriously expensive operation. I could replace it with a mask, but that supposedly leads to a not-so-uniform distribution. A few months back, I implemented in the compiler back end the optimization of replacing an integral divide by constant with a multiply by the reciprocal. [4] It's a lot faster, but here the denominator is a variable, and so I can't use that optimization.

Or can I? The denominator is a prime number pulled out of a table of primes:

    static const size_t prime_list[] = {

              31UL,

              97UL,            389UL,

            1543UL,          6151UL,

            24593UL,          98317UL,

          393241UL,        1572869UL,

          6291469UL,      25165843UL,

        100663319UL,      402653189UL,

      1610612741UL,    4294967291UL,

    };

If the hash table chains get too long, it is rehashed using a larger prime from this table. But most of the time, the symbol tables are small (every scope has its own symbol table). So I rewrote the key%len as:

    size_t i;

    size_t len = aa->b_length;

    if (len == 4)

        i = (size_t)key & 3;

    else if (len == 31)

        i = (size_t)key % 31;

    else

        i = (size_t)key % len;

The smallest bucket has a length of 4, the next larger size is 31. So, for the most common cases, the compiler is able to generate the fast modulo code because it's dividing by a known constant.

This change alone was worth a 5% speed boost. Not bad for 3 or 4 lines of code!

That left storage allocation.

Storage allocation is one of the great unsolved problems in programming. You can do manual allocation at the expense of endless pointer bugs. You can do reference counting with its performance problems and bloat. You can do garbage collection with its pausing and excessive memory consumption.

DMD does memory allocation in a bit of a sneaky way. Since compilers are short-lived programs, and speed is of the essence, DMD just mallocs away, and never frees. This eliminates the scaffolding and complexity of figuring out who owns the memory and when it should be released. (It has the downside of consuming all the resources of your machine if the module being compiled is big enough.)

But malloc() itself is designed with the presumption that the memory allocated will eventually get freed. Since it's not in DMD, I tried replacing the storage allocator with a dead simple bump-the-pointer greedy allocator:

    #define CHUNK_SIZE (4096 * 16)

    static size_t heapleft = 0;

    static void *heapp;

    void * operator new(size_t m_size) {

        // 16 byte alignment is better

        // (and sometimes needed) for doubles

        m_size = (m_size + 15) & ~15;

        // The layout of the code is selected so the

        // most common case is straight through

        if (m_size <= heapleft) {

          L1:

            heapleft -= m_size;

            void *p = heapp;

            heapp = (void *)((char *)heapp + m_size);

            return p;

        }

        if (m_size > CHUNK_SIZE) {

            void *p = malloc(m_size);

            if (p)

                return p;

            printf("Error: out of memory\n");

            exit(EXIT_FAILURE);

            return p;

        }

        heapleft = CHUNK_SIZE;

        heapp = malloc(CHUNK_SIZE);

        if (!heapp) {

            printf("Error: out of memory\n");

            exit(EXIT_FAILURE);

        }

        goto L1;

    }

    void operator delete(void *p) { }

It's like I poured nitrous down the compiler's throat. Along with the other improvements, this achieved a near doubling of the compiler speed. (It even reduced the memory consumption somewhat, apparently because malloc() needed memory for its data structures.)

The benchmark used was compiling Phobos' std.algorithm for unit tests, which is:

    dmd std\algorithm -unittest –main

dmd 2.063 does the nasty in 21.56 seconds, and the latest development version does it in 12.19. This was done on Windows. There's a little bit of apples versus oranges here, because the latest Phobos is larger than the 2.063 one.

(DMD 2.064 with this improvement hasn't been released yet, but of course you can try it out from github.)

Conclusion

Even if you know your code well, you're likely wrong about where the performance bottlenecks are. Use a profiler. If you haven't used one on your codebase in a while, it's highly likely there's a bottleneck in there that's fixable with just a few lines of code.

References

	DMD source code

	hash tables

	storage allocator

	Torbjörn Granlund and Peter Montgomery, Division by Invariant Integers using Multiplication

	std.algorithm source code

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Jason House and Andrei Alexandrescu for their helpful comments on this article.

    Related Reading

        	News

	Commentary

            News

			    	Application Intelligence For Advanced Dummies

	SmartBear Supports Selenium WebDriver

	JetBrains Upsource 1.0 Final Release

	Restlet Completes "Complete" API Platform

More News»                        

            Commentary

			    	Tools To Build Payment-Enabled Mobile Apps

	Java Plumbr Unlocks Threads

	The Touch of a Button

	Abstractions For Binary Search, Part 9: What Do We Need to Test?

More Commentary»                        

        	Slideshow

	Video

            Slideshow

			    	Jolt Awards 2015: Coding Tools

	Developer Reading List

	2013 Developer Salary Survey

	Jolt Awards: The Best Testing Tools

More Slideshows»                        

            Video

			    	IBM Mobile Developer Challenge

	Solve for Tomorrow

	Perceptual Computing

	Connected Vehicles

More Videos»                        

        	Most Popular

            Most Popular

			    	The C++14 Standard: What You Need to Know

	So You Want To Write Your Own Language?

	Unit Testing with Python

	MongoDB with C#: Deep Dive

More Popular»                        

					INFO-LINK

      		Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

			Single tags

			These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag. 

			<br> Defines a single line break 

			<hr> Defines a horizontal line

			Matching tags

			These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i> 

			<a> Defines an anchor

			<b> Defines bold text

			<big> Defines big text

			<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

			<caption> Defines a table caption

			<cite> Defines a citation

			<code> Defines computer code text

			<em> Defines emphasized text

			<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

			<h1> This is heading 1

			<h2> This is heading 2

			<h3> This is heading 3

			<h4> This is heading 4

			<h5> This is heading 5

			<h6> This is heading 6

			<i> Defines italic text

			<p> Defines a paragraph

			<pre> Defines preformatted text

			<q> Defines a short quotation

			<samp> Defines sample computer code text

			<small> Defines small text

			<span> Defines a section in a document

			<s> Defines strikethrough text

			<strike> Defines strikethrough text 

			<strong> Defines strong text 

			<sub> Defines subscripted text 

			<sup> Defines superscripted text 

			<u> Defines underlined text

		  Dr. Dobb's encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task.  

		  However, Dr. Dobb's moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing or spam. Dr. Dobb's further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

			To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.

	C/C++ Recent Articles

		Dr. Dobb's Archive

	Jolt Awards 2015: Coding Tools

	Building Node.js Projects in Visual Studio

	Building Portable Games in C++

	C# and .NET's Sudden Ubiquity

				Most Popular

	Stories

	Blogs

					The C++14 Standard: What You Need to Know

					A Simple and Efficient FFT Implementation in C++:

 Part I

					State Machine Design in C++

					Lambdas in C++11

					A Lightweight Logger for C++

					C++11: unique_ptr

					C++11's async Template

					Abstractions For Binary Search, Part 10: Putting It All Together

					It's Hard To Compare Floating-Point Numbers

					Auto Types and Range-Based For Statements in C++11

	This month's Dr. Dobb's Journal

				This month, 

Dr. Dobb's Journal is devoted to mobile programming. We introduce you to Apple's new Swift programming language, discuss the perils of being the third-most-popular mobile platform, revisit SQLite on Android		

				, and much more!

				Download the latest issue today. >> 

    Upcoming Events

         Live Events

         WebCasts

     	  	Interop ITX: The Independent Conference For Tech Leaders (April 30 - May 4 In Las Vegas) - InteropITX 2018

	Enterprise Connect Conference and Expo: March 12-15 - Enterprise Connect Orlando

	Speech Technologies - New Track at Enterprise Connect! - Enterprise Connect Orlando

	Transform Business Processes with API-enabled Integrations - Enterprise Connect Orlando

                        		Agile Desktop Infrastructures: You CAN Have It All                        	

	Mobile Content Management: What You Really Need to Know                        	

	New Technologies to Optimize Mobile Financial Services                        	

	How to Stop Web Application Attacks                        	

	Developing a User-Centric Secure Mobile Strategy: It's in Reach                        	

           		 More Webcasts>>

	Featured Reports

			What's this?

				Return of the Silos				

				Strategy: The Hybrid Enterprise Data Center				

				State of Cloud 2011: Time for Process Maturation				

				SaaS and E-Discovery: Navigating Complex Waters				

				Research: Federal Government Cloud Computing Survey				

		More >>

	Featured Whitepapers

			What's this?

				Driving Your Cloud Strategy with Private Network Solutions				

				Managing Access to SaaS Applications				

				The People Problem: Cyber Threats Aren't Just a Technology Challenge				

				Simplify IT With Cloud-Based Wireless Management				

				State of Private Cloud Report: Lessons from Early Adopters				

		More >>

				Most Recent Premium Content

	Digital Issues

2014

Dr. Dobb's Journal

	November - Mobile Development

	August - Web Development

	May - Testing

	February - Languages

Dr. Dobb's Tech Digest

	DevOps

	Open Source

	Windows and .NET programming

	The Design of Messaging Middleware and 10 Tips from Tech Writers

	Parallel Array Operations in Java 8 and Android on x86: Java Native Interface and the Android Native Development Kit

2013

	January - Mobile Development

	February - Parallel Programming

	March - Windows Programming

	April - Programming Languages

	May - Web Development

	June - Database Development

	July - Testing

	August - Debugging and Defect Management

	September - Version Control

	October - DevOps

	November- Really Big Data

	December - Design

2012

	January - C & C++

	February - Parallel Programming

	March - Microsoft Technologies

	April - Mobile Development

	May - Database Programming

	June - Web Development

	July - Security

	August - ALM & Development Tools

	September - Cloud & Web Development

	October - JVM Languages

	November - Testing

	December - DevOps

2011