Unity [Solved] Macro to replace namespaced function

This topic is 3718 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm re-writing my game engine atm (I made the stupid mistake of underestimating the difficulty of retrofitting thread safety) and decided I should take the opportunity to pretty up my code by using namespaces instead of 2-3 letter prefixes for each system. I'm also wanting to speed a few heavily used things up a bit like my math library but have run into a bit of a problem, I want to use macros for release builds instead of functions because they are faster but having the debug functions in namespaces is making things difficult :(. Is there a way to use macros to fake namespaces so something like the following would work?
namespace Math
{
#ifdef _DEBUG
static float Max(const float value1, const float value2) {return ((value1 > value2) ? value1 : value2);}
#else
#define Max(max, val) (((max) < (val)) ? (val) : (max))
#endif
};

void SomeFunction()
{
float max = Math::Max(0.1f, 0.2f);
}


Obviously it all works fine for debug but in release it wont compile since macros aren't affected by namespaces :(. BTW before anyone says "inline functions are just as fast as macros" I have been profiling and no matter what I do the macro version will run nearly 2 times faster than the best version of the function I could come up with and in many situations as much as 10-100 times faster (like when using constants which will get compiled down to just an assignment). Though it is possible I'm doing something wrong that's preventing it inlining properly and if so then awesome, I can just use the much nicer/safer function rather than macros but I doubt that'll be the case :(. Thanks Edit: Solution is to enable optimization compiler switches and use functions instead. [Edited by - Skiller on October 12, 2008 5:30:15 AM]

Share on other sites
No, it's not possible; macros aren't aware of namespaces in any way.

Also, have you been profiling with full optimizations enabled? I wouldn't be surprised if the macro version were that faster in a debugging, unoptimized build -- seeing that kind of results in fully-optimized build stripped of any debugging seems rather strange to me.

Also, you don't need to write your own Math::Max, it's already been done for you: std::max.

Share on other sites
I'm gonna say it anyway; use the inline function. Yes, it is likely that you are doing something wrong if you get a 10-100 times difference, or you should get a decent compiler. For example, whole program optimization in Visual studio of later editions should have no problem inlining that function call.

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by Skiller(like when using constants which will get compiled down to just an assignment).

Which compiler are you using?

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by SkillerBTW before anyone says "inline functions are just as fast as macros" I have been profiling and no matter what I do the macro version will run nearly 2 times faster than the best version of the function I could come up with and in many situations as much as 10-100 times faster (like when using constants which will get compiled down to just an assignment). Though it is possible I'm doing something wrong that's preventing it inlining properly and if so then awesome, I can just use the much nicer/safer function rather than macros but I doubt that'll be the case :(.

I'd like to see your test cases. Got an example where the macro version is faster than the inlined one?

Share on other sites
I think your basic problem with any performance metrics you might be trying to use is that your function isn't actually an inline function. Inline functions use the inline keyword or get declared inside the body of class definitions. What you've got a non-inline function declared as static. Static will make it link, but it'll also create a separate version of the function in each and every source file that uses that function definition. This leads to code bloat, which will also adversely affect performance.

Share on other sites
Here is the exact code I use for this if you can spot why it might not be inlineing properly then please let me know as I would much prefer to use functions. BTW std::Max is actually slower than the function I wrote, but only by an insignificant amount ;).

UtMath.h
[source="cpp"]#ifndef UT_MATH_H#define UT_MATH_H////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Various math constants and functions.///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////namespace Math{	//Variouse other function and constants not relevant edited out#define maxDefine(max, val) (((max) < (val)) ? (val) : (max))	inline float Max(const float& value1, const float& value2){return ((value1 > value2) ? value1 : value2);}};#endif //UT_MATH_H

Main.cpp (just shoved in here as a temperary measure while profiling)
[source="cpp"]for (UInt32 pass = 0; pass < 10; ++pass){	float val1 = pass * 0.01f;	float val2 = pass * 0.02f;	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("std::max");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = std::max(val1, val2);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("Macro");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = maxDefine(val1, val2);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("Function");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = Math::Max(val1, val2);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("Function");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = Math::Max(val1, val2);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("Macro");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = maxDefine(val1, val2);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("std::max");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = std::max(val1, val2);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();}

I mixed up the order like that to see if it might have been a cache thing but results were still very consistent.
The profiler just does a QueryPerformanceCounter in UtProfiler_BeginLoad then another QueryPerformanceCounter in UtProfiler_EndLoad and traces out the difference.
I'm using a modder build config which I created, it's a copy of the release build config but with a _MODDER #define set that turns on all the profiling, asserts, memory tracking and other tools I have in debug but with compiler optimizations on, I'm also using the VS2008 compiler. In case you are wondering I plan to ship the modder build so content modders will get a heap of extra info on any potential problems their content may cause, and also if people are getting crashes then they can run the modder build and it'll probably throw an assert or trace out some extra info to help me track down the bug easier :).

Anyway the results:
Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00483Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00215Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00441Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00235Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00451Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00225Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00444Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00439Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00235Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00447Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00451Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00222Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00440Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00234Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00447Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00451Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00219Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00441Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00235Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00447Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00460Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00221Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00446Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00440Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00235Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00447Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00452Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00212Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00235Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00447Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00451Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00234Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00440Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00235Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00447Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00451Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00219Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00440Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00235Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00449Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00451Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00227Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00443Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00441Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00233Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00447Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00451Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00212Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00442Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00233Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00447

Fairly consistently Macro > Function > std::max in terms of speed. If, as seems to be the case, there is no way to get the macros to work with namespaces I'll just use my function for both since CPUs should be fast enough for it to not make too big an impact on frame rate and I'd rather the type safety if I can get it, I'll also probably templatize the function if that doesn't have too big an impact on speed (which it shouldn't as far as I'm aware).

Edit: I re-did my profiling using the fast function and yer my results aren't anywhere near the 10-100 times faster when using constants I stated earlier, those figures must have been for the old function I was using that didn't seem to inline. But in an unexpected result but the function and std::max *increased* the time it took when using constants, the macro decreased to the point that the majority of the time is probably the time spent looping.
Main.cpp using constants:
[source="cpp"]for (UInt32 pass = 0; pass < 10; ++pass){	float val1 = pass * 0.01f;	float val2 = pass * 0.02f;	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("std::max");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = std::max(0.1f, 0.2f);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("Macro");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = maxDefine(0.1f, 0.2f);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("Function");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = Math::Max(0.1f, 0.2f);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("Function");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = Math::Max(0.1f, 0.2f);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("Macro");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = maxDefine(0.1f, 0.2f);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();	UtProfiler_BeginLoad("std::max");	for (UInt32 i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)	{		float maxVal = std::max(0.1f, 0.2f);	}	UtProfiler_EndLoad();}

Results of using constants:
Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00512Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00178Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00580Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00516Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00567Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00521Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00581Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00517Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00567Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00523Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00568Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00517Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00567Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00524Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00587Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00516Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00567Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00516Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00555Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00516Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00567Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00503Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00582Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00517Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00568Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00522Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00569Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00518Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00567Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00519Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00601Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00517Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00568Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00521Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00567Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00517Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00567Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00519Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00559Load complete: Function, Completed in: 0.00516Load complete: Macro, Completed in: 0.00177Load complete: std::max, Completed in: 0.00567

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by SkillerBut in an unexpected result but the function and std::max *increased* the time it took when using constants, the macro decreased to the point that the majority of the time is probably the time spent looping.
The macro with constants probably caused the entire loop to be optimised out, so those results are pretty much useless.

Share on other sites
Problem is that you used a constant, and the compiler is free to optimize that out:
maxDefine(1, 2)// will become1 > 2 ? 1 : 2// will become2

And given that you never even do anything with the float itself, the compiler should technically be free to get rid of the whole loop.

Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by swiftcoder
Quote:
 Original post by SkillerBut in an unexpected result but the function and std::max *increased* the time it took when using constants, the macro decreased to the point that the majority of the time is probably the time spent looping.
The macro with constants probably caused the entire loop to be optimised out, so those results are pretty much useless.

What's faster is faster that's all there is to it, it's a good thing that it gets optimized out and it's good to see how much faster it is in that case so I don't understand how those results are useless. If constants were used in the code then the results clearly show that a macro is the fastest option, though obviously it'd be much rarer for that to be the case which is why I'm only really concerned with the common use case of using variables.

Quote:
 Original post by agi_shiProblem is that you used a constant, and the compiler is free to optimize that out:maxDefine(1, 2)// will become1 > 2 ? 1 : 2// will become2And given that you never even do anything with the float itself, the compiler should technically be free to get rid of the whole loop.

It gets compiled down to just this:
			float maxVal = maxDefine(0.01f, 0.02f);0040D6E9  fld         dword ptr [__real@3ca3d70a (40F958h)] 0040D6EF  fstp        dword ptr [maxVal]

I don't understand assembly but that looks like it's probably just an assignment which would prove your theory, except compiling out the loop as that still gets done.

But as I said if it gets compiled out then that's the best possible solution as far as speed goes so that's not a problem, it just clearly shows macros are the best solution when using constants.

Anyway I'm not concerned about use with constants, I just put it there for those who were interested and to clear up the erroneous statement that I was getting 10-100 times the speed with constants which it's quite clear I'm not anymore since the function is much faster than when I last checked :).

1. 1
2. 2
Rutin
22
3. 3
4. 4
khawk
14
5. 5

• 13
• 26
• 10
• 11
• 44
• Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
633743
• Total Posts
3013643
×