|
Boost : |
Subject: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Hite, Christopher (Christopher.Hite_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-25 12:28:45
When decompiling my code I noticed a bunch of unnessesary code caused by boost::optional.
1) deconstruction
typedef boost::optional<int> optional_int;
void deconstruct_boost_optional(optional_int& o){
o.~optional_int();
}
One would expect this to do nothing. Instead gcc 4.6.0 with O3 generates:
if(m_initialized){
// do nothing
m_initialized = false;
}
00000000 <deconstruct_boost_optional(boost::optional<int>&)>:
0: 8b 44 24 04 mov 0x4(%esp),%eax
4: 80 38 00 cmpb $0x0,(%eax)
7: 74 03 je c <deconstruct_boost_optional(boost::optional<int>&)+0xc>
9: c6 00 00 movb $0x0,(%eax)
c: f3 c3 repz ret
This one could be easily fixed by removing the bit that sets m_initialized to false, since we're deconstructing anyway.
2) assignment also generates these problems:
void assign_boost_optional(optional_int& o){
o=13;
}
Here there's a semantic issue: we have to decide to use the copy constructor or operator=. This is also wasteful for POD types or any type which has_trivial_copy<>.
3) Even more expensive is if we want to copy an optional<int>
void assign_boost_optional(optional_int& a,optional_int& b){
a=b;
}
00000000 <assign_boost_optional(boost::optional<int>&, boost::optional<int>&)>:
0: 8b 44 24 04 mov 0x4(%esp),%eax
4: 8b 54 24 08 mov 0x8(%esp),%edx
8: 80 38 00 cmpb $0x0,(%eax)
b: 74 0b je 18 <assign_boost_optional(boost::optional<int>&, boost::optional<int>&)+0x18>
d: 80 3a 00 cmpb $0x0,(%edx)
10: 75 16 jne 28 <assign_boost_optional(boost::optional<int>&, boost::optional<int>&)+0x28>
12: c6 00 00 movb $0x0,(%eax)
15: c3 ret
16: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
18: 80 3a 00 cmpb $0x0,(%edx)
1b: 74 09 je 26 <assign_boost_optional(boost::optional<int>&, boost::optional<int>&)+0x26>
1d: 8b 52 04 mov 0x4(%edx),%edx
20: c6 00 01 movb $0x1,(%eax)
23: 89 50 04 mov %edx,0x4(%eax)
26: f3 c3 repz ret
28: 8b 52 04 mov 0x4(%edx),%edx
2b: 89 50 04 mov %edx,0x4(%eax)
2e: c3 ret
Three possible branches! Theoretically single 64 bit copy do the job. I'm tempted to say: it would be best if for any T has_trivial_copy< optional<T> > iff has_trivial_copy<T>. It might make a sense to make an exception for huge T, where the copying an unused T is more expensive than the branching.
4) has_trivial_destructor<T> should impl has_trivial_destructor< optional<T> > , but this is hard to implement without specialization of optional.
Checking has_trivial_destructor might take care of the complexity of optional<T&> since has_trivial_destructor< T& >.
I'd be willing to fix #1. The other issues need some discussion.
Chris
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk