Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: C++ Programming Q: are const and define efficiency the same

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:52:36 01/18/04

Go up one level in this thread


On January 18, 2004 at 01:09:13, Andrew Dados wrote:

>On January 17, 2004 at 12:24:59, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On January 17, 2004 at 07:14:35, Bo Persson wrote:
>>
>>>On January 16, 2004 at 22:35:55, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On January 16, 2004 at 22:15:34, Federico Corigliano wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi
>>>>>
>>>>>In my engine I have a lot of #defines as:
>>>>>#define FileA 0xFFFFFFFF  <- I don't remember the real value
>>>>>and I want to convert it to:
>>>>>const UINT64 FileA = 0xFFFFFFFFF;
>>>>>I the change can affect the speed. As I often use MSVC Debugger, it's boring to
>>>>>translate every #define to the respective number.
>>>>>
>>>>>Federico
>>>>
>>>>I don't think there will be much difference.  Using a #define might produce
>>>>some asm code with 32 bit immediate values which will bloat the code a bit,
>>>>while using the const int64 will plop one copy of the value in memory making
>>>>it fit in cache maybe a bit better.
>>>
>>><nitpicking>
>>>There is a minute difference between C and C++, in that const values have
>>>internal linkage by default in C++ (in C that would be 'static const'). That
>>>saves the compiler from having to store the value in memory, as it cannot be
>>>accessed from other compilation units anyway.
>>></nitpicking>
>>>
>>
>>I hadn't thought about the static C option at all, bit irregardless there is
>>still a question of use a #define to produce a huge instruction where at least
>>the immediate will be available when the instruction is executed, or to use a
>>memory reference where the instruction will be smaller and hopefully the data
>>will be in cache.
>
>Not sure if 2 memory references (in 32bit mode) will produce shorter code then
>immediate values. Most likely no savings at all, maybe even immediate value can
>save some code size. That depends on how is the 64bit constant accessed and
>used, and of course on mode of processor (32 vs 64). Note for some operations
>immediate value is MUCH faster, then for some operations immediate value can't
>be used at all.
>
>- Andrew-

Here was my thinking.  a 32 bit immediate value is stuck right in the
instruction.  And it is replicated everywhere it is needed.  A 32 bit
value can be stored on the stack, and accessed with a register + 8bit offset
if you are lucky, which results in shorter code, a smaller footprint in the
L1 I-cache, and probably better performance as the only one copy of the
constant gets stuck in the L1 D-cache...

But as I said, I would not depend on static analysis, I would always test
this as there are lots of variables in where things get placed and how they
are referenced.

>
>>
>>There is probably some break-even point in how many times you use one or the
>>other, before the other is preferable.  I wouldn't try to predict without
>>running it however.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Best bet is to try it and see which is faster for _your_ program and machine.
>>>
>>>A good idea anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bo Persson



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.