A tool that suggests optimized logic for a piece of code/module/function
in [Embedded]
|
From: Jon Kirwan on 17 Jan 2010 18:03 On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:26:12 -0500, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >-jg wrote: > >> Not sure how you'd 'compiler automate' this ? >> perhaps insert a start tag, and a series of stop tags, >> all in the source, and create/maintain/calibrate a whole series of >> cycle-tables, for the cores your compiler supports. There are over a >> dozen timing choices on 80C51's alone now. >> (NOT going to be easy for the compiler to correctly add value- >> dependant multiple branches, so a pencil is _still_ needed) > >We have one advantage in our compilers for this because we >normally compile directly to machine code. For processors with >deterministic timing constant timing is possible for the limited >set of problems whose timing is deterministic. I'd imagine that by deferring some of the work involved into the link process, much can also be done here. I think I read recently here that GNU GCC, v4.5, starts to do more of the significant optimizations in the link phase. But I might have misunderstood what I read. Jon
From: David Brown on 18 Jan 2010 02:47 Richard Tobin wrote: > In article <87ska5ezlg.fsf(a)fever.mssgmbh.com>, > Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: > >> UNIX(*) has a single type of 'interactive command processor/ simple >> scripting language' and its features are described by an IEEE >> standard. > > This is pedantry of the most pointless kind. You're welcome to > your "UNIX(*)", but don't pretend that your comments have anything > to do with the real world. > Actually, his comment /does/ have a lot to do with the real world - it was just very badly expressed. There is a posix standard for shells, which gives a standard base for almost all shells in the *nix (Linux, BSD, "real" unix, etc.) world. Most shells have features beyond the posix base, and those are often incompatible, but if you stick to the posix subset your scripts should work under any shell. Of course, this is getting /way/ off topic for this thread...
From: David Brown on 18 Jan 2010 03:28 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:26:12 -0500, Walter Banks > <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> -jg wrote: >> >>> Not sure how you'd 'compiler automate' this ? >>> perhaps insert a start tag, and a series of stop tags, >>> all in the source, and create/maintain/calibrate a whole series of >>> cycle-tables, for the cores your compiler supports. There are over a >>> dozen timing choices on 80C51's alone now. >>> (NOT going to be easy for the compiler to correctly add value- >>> dependant multiple branches, so a pencil is _still_ needed) >> We have one advantage in our compilers for this because we >> normally compile directly to machine code. For processors with >> deterministic timing constant timing is possible for the limited >> set of problems whose timing is deterministic. > > I'd imagine that by deferring some of the work involved into > the link process, much can also be done here. I think I read > recently here that GNU GCC, v4.5, starts to do more of the > significant optimizations in the link phase. But I might > have misunderstood what I read. > gcc 4.5 has merged the experimental LTO (link-time optimisation) branch of gcc into the mainline. Such optimisations are not about getting exact, predictable or consistent timing - it's about getting the fastest and/or smallest code. As such, using LTO would probably make it harder to get deterministic timing. The basic idea of LTO is that when the compiler compiles a C (or CPP, Ada, whatever) file, it saves a partly digested internal tree to the object file as well as the generated object code. When you later link a set of object files (or libraries) that have this LTO code, the linker passes the LTO code back to the compiler again for final code generation. The compiler can then apply cross-module optimisations (such as inlining, constant propagation, code merging, etc.) across these separately partially-compiled modules. In other words, it is a very flexible form of whole program optimisation, since it works with libraries, separately compiled modules (no need to have the whole source code on hand), different languages, and it can work step-wise for very large programs as well as for small programs. Another feature of gcc 4.5 that is more directly relevant here is that you can now specify optimisation options for particular functions directly in the source code. Thus you can have your timing-critical bit-bang function compiled with little or no optimisation to be sure you get the same target code each time, while the rest of the module can be highly optimised as the compiler sees fit.
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 18 Jan 2010 03:58 David Brown <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes: > Richard Tobin wrote: >> In article <87ska5ezlg.fsf(a)fever.mssgmbh.com>, >> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: >> >>> UNIX(*) has a single type of 'interactive command processor/ simple >>> scripting language' and its features are described by an IEEE >>> standard. >> >> This is pedantry of the most pointless kind. You're welcome to >> your "UNIX(*)", but don't pretend that your comments have anything >> to do with the real world. >> > > Actually, his comment /does/ have a lot to do with the real world - it > was just very badly expressed. There is a posix standard for shells, > which gives a standard base for almost all shells in the *nix (Linux, > BSD, "real" unix, etc.) world. Most shells have features beyond the > posix base, and those are often incompatible, but if you stick to the > posix subset your scripts should work under any shell. You changed the context. It wasn't scripts, it was interactive use. You're forgetting chsh, and the fact that not all shells are designed to be somewhat compatible with POSIX shell. > Of course, this is getting /way/ off topic for this thread... Let's put it back on-topic: chsh /usr/bin/emacs Et voil�! Instant "word" processor shell... -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
From: Walter Banks on 18 Jan 2010 09:51
David Brown wrote: > Jon Kirwan wrote: > > I'd imagine that by deferring some of the work involved into > > the link process, much can also be done here. I think I read > > recently here that GNU GCC, v4.5, starts to do more of the > > significant optimizations in the link phase. But I might > > have misunderstood what I read. > > > > gcc 4.5 has merged the experimental LTO (link-time optimisation) branch > of gcc into the mainline. Such optimisations are not about getting > exact, predictable or consistent timing - it's about getting the fastest > and/or smallest code. As such, using LTO would probably make it harder > to get deterministic timing. > > The basic idea of LTO is that when the compiler compiles a C (or CPP, > Ada, whatever) file, it saves a partly digested internal tree to the > object file as well as the generated object code. When you later link a > set of object files (or libraries) that have this LTO code, the linker > passes the LTO code back to the compiler again for final code > generation. The compiler can then apply cross-module optimisations > (such as inlining, constant propagation, code merging, etc.) across > these separately partially-compiled modules. All of our compilers can do either absolute code generation where there is no link step. The compiler can bring in pre-compiled objects or libraries if needed. We can compile to object and link where linker will call the compiler's code generator to resolve application level optimization. Neither step has an assembler intermediate code. Regards, -- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited http://www.bytecraft.com |