This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Compiler optimisation

Hello,

1.when i use printf with no var_args then the compiler should call puts instead of printf.

ex1:


#include <REGX51.H>
#include <stdio.h>

void main(void)
{
        printf("This must call puts instead of printf");
}


Program Size: data=30.1 xdata=0 code=1103

ex2:


#include <REGX51.H>
#include <stdio.h>

void main(void)
{
        puts("This must call puts instead of printf");
}


Program Size: data=9.0 xdata=0 code=168

The above code links the printf function from the library which is huge(produces 1103 bytes).But the compiler can use puts when there is no var_args given which is much smaller than printf(produces 168 bytes).

2.The Compiler must find and remove the duplicate constant strings

ex3:


#include <REGX51.H>
#include <stdio.h>

void main(void)
{
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
}


Program Size: data=9.0 xdata=0 code=334

ex4:


#include <REGX51.H>
#include <stdio.h>

void main(void)
{
        puts("This string gets duplicated as many time as i use it");
}


Program Size: data=9.0 xdata=0 code=183

3.Bit Test instructions are not used when i actually test for the bit

ex5:


#include <REGX51.H>
#include <stdio.h>


void main(void)
{
        if(P0^1)
        {
                P1 = 10;
        }

}


ASSEMBLY LISTING OF GENERATED OBJECT CODE

             ; FUNCTION main (BEGIN)
                                           ; SOURCE LINE # 6
                                           ; SOURCE LINE # 7
                                           ; SOURCE LINE # 8
0000 E580              MOV     A,P0
0002 6401              XRL     A,#01H
0004 6003              JZ      ?C0002
                                           ; SOURCE LINE # 9
                                           ; SOURCE LINE # 10
0006 75900A            MOV     P1,#0AH
                                           ; SOURCE LINE # 11
                                           ; SOURCE LINE # 13
0009         ?C0002:
0009 22                RET
             ; FUNCTION main (END)

In the above assembly output it should have used a single instruction JNB instead of three MOV,XRL and JZ.This is very basic anybody would object the assembly code produced.

I have not used the compiler much.But the compiler needs a look by the programmers at keil.

The above programs were all compiled with compiler optimisation level set to 9 & favour speed.

About 5 years back i compiled a c51 source code using keil.
Now i recompiled the same source code with the latest compiler from keil and compared the two output .hex files.
Unfortunately it produced exactly the same output.Here i was expecting some code and data size reduction as the compiler must be capable of optimising more.

It seems there was no improvement on the compiler side.

It is not a complaint but in the interest of improving the compiler.

regards,

S.Sheik mohamed

Parents
  • The job of optimizer is to reduce the code , data size & make the code run fast.

    Even if we switch off the optimizer and compile with different compilers on the market can you predict the execution time or the code that each compiler produces ? definiteley not.If you want to rely on execution speed you will have to check the assembly output from that compiler.When you know your code does not use above 255 then you are sure.But when you do not know you do not switch on the optimizer.

    Would anybody like to loose code & data size for the sake of decreasing speed.

    Sheik mohamed

Reply
  • The job of optimizer is to reduce the code , data size & make the code run fast.

    Even if we switch off the optimizer and compile with different compilers on the market can you predict the execution time or the code that each compiler produces ? definiteley not.If you want to rely on execution speed you will have to check the assembly output from that compiler.When you know your code does not use above 255 then you are sure.But when you do not know you do not switch on the optimizer.

    Would anybody like to loose code & data size for the sake of decreasing speed.

    Sheik mohamed

Children
  • "... to reduce the code , data size & make the code run fast"

    Ideally, yes - but, in practice, reducing size and increasing speed are often in conflict.
    Hence most optimisers have options to optimise for speed or optimise for size.

    "can you predict the execution time or the code that each compiler produces?"

    No, of course you can't! It was a sarcastic comment due to the huge number of people who fall into the trap of trying to write HLL delay loops based on the (false) assumption that you can predict the execution time!
    See, for example, www.8052.com/.../162556