# VS2008 Optimiser

This topic is 2772 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

The optimiser in VS2008 seems to be lacking when it comes to detecting common sub-expressions. Some examples are:

foo[bar]->a = x0;
foo[bar]->b = x1;
foo[bar]->c = x2;

The compiler was calculating foo[bar] at every point I used it, instead of performing this simple optimisation:

ObjType& fooBar = foo[bar];
fooBar.a = x0;
fooBar.b = x1;
fooBar.c = x2;

Also annoying is that most of the time the compiler won't cache the size() method of STL containers. When not using iterators, I usually write loops like this now:
for(std::size_t i = 0, num = vec.size(); i != num; i++)
The compiler ignores all the obvious signs that the size of the vector isn't changing. e.g. it doesn't matter if I'm only reading from the vector, and everything is marked const. It still spits out around 8 instructions every time size() is called.

Now for a question about practices. Are you guys in the habit of collecting sub-expressions yourselves - i.e. creating a reference to something you'll use more than once, such as foo[bar]->x, or do you consider this needless premature optimisation?

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by taz0010Now for a question about practices. Are you guys in the habit of collecting sub-expressions yourselves - i.e. creating a reference to something you'll use more than once, such as foo[bar]->x, or do you consider this needless premature optimisation?

Rarely. Only in some inner loops and when there's a bottleneck/slowdown.

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by taz0010The compiler was calculating foo[bar] at every point I used it, instead of performing this simple optimisation:

That is because foo[bar] can change in other thread while you are changing a member. So there is possibility that membe b needs to assigned for different foo object. Non-standard restrict keyword could help there.

Quote:
 When not using iterators, I usually write loops like this now:

You should prefer iterators.

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by taz0010The compiler was calculating foo[bar] at every point I used it, instead of performing this simple optimisation:

Did you disable secure iterators?
Are you making a release build?

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by bubu LV
Quote:
 Original post by taz0010The compiler was calculating foo[bar] at every point I used it, instead of performing this simple optimisation:

That is because foo[bar] can change in other thread while you are changing a member. So there is possibility that membe b needs to assigned for different foo object.
I don't believe other threads are taken into account unless volatile is specified.

I'm wondering what compiler flags are in use, first of all.

##### Share on other sites
Well, I'm assuming foo is a std::vector in your example, so the optimization you're asking for isn't as straightforward as you make it out to be. Just because it looks like simple array indexing, it isn't.
ObjType &fooBar = foo[bar];// ...is really the same as...ObjType &fooBar = foo.at(bar);
So the optimization you're asking for would require the compiler to be able to examine the function and determine that the same input ALWAYS maps to the same output. If foo is actually a simple pointer, not a std::vector, then you're probably using the wrong build settings to get that optimization.

P.S. Your examples in the OP don't jive. The first one uses a dereferencing accessor (->), meaning foo would consist of an array of ObjType pointers, whereas the second one would consist of an array of ObjType. So it's kinda hard to tell what the exact situation is.

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Promit
Quote:
Original post by bubu LV
Quote:
 Original post by taz0010The compiler was calculating foo[bar] at every point I used it, instead of performing this simple optimisation:

That is because foo[bar] can change in other thread while you are changing a member. So there is possibility that membe b needs to assigned for different foo object.
I don't believe other threads are taken into account unless volatile is specified.

I'm wondering what compiler flags are in use, first of all.

I believe other threads can be taken into account if the variable is global or if it is passed to an external library function.

I'm actually wondering what the complete function looks like. It could also be that the compiler can't tell whether or not the array is aliased, in which case performing the optimization would be broken.