I'm compiling a program with -O3 for performance and -g for debug symbols (in case of crash I can use the core dump). One thing bothers me a lot, does the -g option results in a performance penalty? When I look on the output of the compilation with and without -g, I see that the output without -g is 80% smaller than the output of the compilation with -g. If the extra space goes for the debug symbols, I don't care about it (I guess) since this part is not used during runtime. But if for each instruction in the compilation output without -g I need to do 4 more instructions in the compilation output with -g than I certainly prefer to stop using -g option even at the cost of not being able to process core dumps.
How to know the size of the debug symbols section inside the program and in general does compilation with -g creates a program which runs slower than the same code compiled without -g?
Citing from the gcc documentation
GCC allows you to use -g with -O. The shortcuts taken by optimized
code may occasionally produce surprising results: some variables you
declared may not exist at all; flow of control may briefly move where
you did not expect it; some statements may not be executed because
they compute constant results or their values are already at hand;
some statements may execute in different places because they have been
moved out of loops.
that means:
I will insert debugging symbols for you but I won't try to retain them if an optimization pass screws them out, you'll have to deal with that
Debugging symbols aren't written into the code but into another section called "debug section" which isn't even loaded at runtime (only by a debugger). That means: no code changes. You shouldn't notice any performance difference in code execution speed but you might experience some slowness if the loader needs to deal with the larger binary or if it takes into account the increased binary size somehow. You will probably have to benchmark the app yourself to be 100% sure in your specific case.
Notice that there's also another option from gcc 4.8:
-Og
Optimize debugging experience. -Og enables optimizations that do not interfere with debugging. It should be the optimization level of choice for the standard edit-compile-debug cycle, offering a reasonable level of optimization while maintaining fast compilation and a good debugging experience.
This flag will impact performance because it will disable any optimization pass that would interfere with debugging infos.
Finally, it might even happen that some optimizations are better suited to a specific architecture rather than another one and unless instructed to do so for your specific processor (see march/mtune options for your architecture), in O3 gcc will do its best for a generic architecture. That means you might even experience O3 being slower than O2 in some contrived scenarios. "Best-effort" doesn't always mean "the best available".
Related
This question already has answers here:
Are there any drawbacks to using -O3 in GCC?
(4 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
Should I always specify the -O3 flag when compiling a release version with gcc, or is there any other possible drawback?
Should I always specify the -O3 flag when compiling a release version with gcc?
No, or at least maybe not. For performance; sometimes -O3 makes code that is slower than you get from -O2.
Under the hood; it's really a bunch of different optimizations that can be enabled/disabled individually; where -O3 (and -O2 and -Os) is just a convenient shorthand for enabling a group of many optimizations. -O2 is supposed to represent "enable all optimizations that always help", and -O3 is supposed to represent "enable all optimizations that often help (but may make things worse)". Which actual optimizations are/aren't enabled for each -O setting is detailed in the manual (at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html ).
If you don't use the shortcuts and specify individual optimizations yourself; then (using a laborious "trial and error" approach and benchmarking the result for each case) you can find the set of optimizations that always help your program (and avoid enabling optimizations that make the performance of your program worse).
A more practical approach would be to start with O2 then determine which of the optimizations that aren't already enabled by -O2 also help.
However; performance isn't the only thing that matters. To save time; most people just try -O2 or -O3 and pick whatever seems fastest. Part of the reason for this is that your software and the compiler is constantly changing; so any "laborious benchmarking" you do would need to be done again regularly.
Note: to actually get the maximum performance possible, each translation unit can be compiled with different optimization settings (so you can do the "laborious trial and error" for each individual source file); and then the resulting set of "optimized differently" object files can be fed into a link-time optimizer to optimize more.
I was thinking the other day and this came to mind. I heard that -g turn off optimizations for debugging, but -O0 does turn off all optimizations, right? I am just wondering.
I heard that -g turn off optimizations for debugging
That's not true. -g only tells the compiler to include debug information in the object file; it has no effect on the code that is actually generated, and it can be used in combination with any optimization option you like. It will be more useful when used with -O0 or -Og, as higher optimization levels can change the code in ways that makes it hard to use a debugger, but this is not mandatory.
but -O0 does turn off all optimizations, right?
Yes, that is correct; at least, all optimizations that can be turned off at all. (As JcWasmx86 points out, there are some "optimizations" that are done even at -O0, but you can expect them to be transformations that won't require significant compile time or dramatically change the structure of the generated code.)
I am focusing on the CPU/memory consumption of compiled programs by GCC.
Executing code compiled with O3 is it always so greedy in term of resources ?
Is there any scientific reference or specification that shows the difference of Mem/cpu consumption of different levels?
People working on this problem often focus on the impact of these optimizations on the execution time, compiled code size, energy. However, I can't find too much work talking about resource consumption (by enabling optimizations).
Thanks in advance.
No, there is no absolute way, because optimization in compilers is an art (and is even not well defined, and might be undecidable or intractable).
But some guidelines first:
be sure that your program is correct and has no bugs before optimizing anything, so do debug and test your program
have well designed test cases and representative benchmarks (see this).
be sure that your program has no undefined behavior (and this is tricky, see this), since GCC will optimize strangely (but very often correctly, according to C99 or C11 standards) if you have UB in your code; use the -fsanitize=style options (and gdb and valgrind ....) during debugging phase.
profile your code (on various benchmarks), in particular to find out what parts are worth optimization efforts; often (but not always) most of the CPU time happens in a small fraction of the code (rule of thumb: 80% of time spent in 20% of code; on some applications like the gcc compiler this is not true, check with gcc -ftime-report to ask gcc to show time spent in various compiler modules).... Most of the time "premature optimization is the root of all evil" (but there are exceptions to this aphorism).
improve your source code (e.g. use carefully and correctly restrict and const, add some pragmas or function or variable attributes, perhaps use wisely some GCC builtins __builtin_expect, __builtin_prefetch -see this-, __builtin_unreachable...)
use a recent compiler. Current version (october 2015) of GCC is 5.2 (and GCC 8 in june 2018) and continuous progress on optimization is made ; you might consider compiling GCC from its source code to have a recent version.
enable all warnings (gcc -Wall -Wextra) in the compiler, and try hard to avoid all of them; some warnings may appear only when you ask for optimization (e.g. with -O2)
Usually, compile with -O2 -march=native (or perhaps -mtune=native, I assume that you are not cross-compiling, if you do add the good -march option ...) and benchmark your program with that
Consider link-time optimization by compiling and linking with -flto and the same optimization flags. E.g., put CC= gcc -flto -O2 -march=native in your Makefile (then remove -O2 -mtune=native from your CFLAGS there)...
Try also -O3 -march=native, usually (but not always, you might sometimes has slightly faster code with -O2 than with -O3 but this is uncommon) you might get a tiny improvement over -O2
If you want to optimize the generated program size, use -Os instead of -O2 or -O3; more generally, don't forget to read the section Options That Control Optimization of the documentation. I guess that both -O2 and -Os would optimize the stack usage (which is very related to memory consumption). And some GCC optimizations are able to avoid malloc (which is related to heap memory consumption).
you might consider profile-guided optimizations, -fprofile-generate, -fprofile-use, -fauto-profile options
dive into the documentation of GCC, it has numerous optimization & code generation arguments (e.g. -ffast-math, -Ofast ...) and parameters and you could spend months trying some more of them; beware that some of them are not strictly C standard conforming!
recent GCC and Clang can emit DWARF debug information (somehow "approximate" if strong optimizations have been applied) even when optimizing, so passing both -O2 and -g could be worthwhile (you still would be able, with some pain, to use the gdb debugger on optimized executable)
if you have a lot of time to spend (weeks or months), you might customize GCC using MELT (or some other plugin) to add your own new (application-specific) optimization passes; but this is difficult (you'll need to understand GCC internal representations and organization) and probably rarely worthwhile, except in very specific cases (those when you can justify spending months of your time for improving optimization)
you might want to understand the stack usage of your program, so use -fstack-usage
you might want to understand the emitted assembler code, use -S -fverbose-asm in addition of optimization flags (and look into the produced .s assembler file)
you might want to understand the internal working of GCC, use various -fdump-* flags (you'll get hundred of dump files!).
Of course the above todo list should be used in an iterative and agile fashion.
For memory leaks bugs, consider valgrind and several -fsanitize= debugging options. Read also about garbage collection (and the GC handbook), notably Boehm's conservative garbage collector, and about compile-time garbage collection techniques.
Read about the MILEPOST project in GCC.
Consider also OpenMP, OpenCL, MPI, multi-threading, etc... Notice that parallelization is a difficult art.
Notice that even GCC developers are often unable to predict the effect (on CPU time of the produced binary) of such and such optimization. Somehow optimization is a black art.
Perhaps gcc-help#gcc.gnu.org might be a good place to ask more specific & precise and focused questions about optimizations in GCC
You could also contact me on basileatstarynkevitchdotnet with a more focused question... (and mention the URL of your original question)
For scientific papers on optimizations, you'll find lots of them. Start with ACM TOPLAS, ACM TACO etc... Search for iterative compiler optimization etc.... And define better what resources you want to optimize for (memory consumption means next to nothing....).
I'm only using my program for myself.
Should I just always compile it with -g3 (Debug max) because sometimes I need to debug it?
If with -g0 (Debug none) my program executes faster comparing to -g3 (Debug max)?
About the -gLEVEL (from gcc manual):
Request debugging information and also use level to specify how much information. The default level is 2.
Level 0 produces no debug information at all. Thus, -g0 negates -g.
Level 1 produces minimal information, enough for making backtraces in parts of the program that you don't plan to debug. This includes descriptions of functions and external variables, and line number tables, but no information about local variables.
Level 3 includes extra information, such as all the macro definitions present in the program. Some debuggers support macro expansion when you use -g3.
So the difference between -g0 and -g3 is that with level 0 you don't get debugging symbols, with level 3 you get a lot of symbols.
Anyway the debug symbols are located in totally different sections from the code/data sections. You can check with objdump (and you can read How do debug symbols affect performance of a Linux executable compiled by GCC?).
Strictly speaking with -g0 you shouldn't get a faster program BUT with many debug symbols program load time can be longer.
It's interesting to note that for GCC the presence of debug symbols (-g) and the optimization level (e.g. -O2) are orthogonal, you can use -g -O2 without losing compiler optimization (you just get less useful debug info because optimized code less closely resembles the original source code).
I'd also consider the -Og optimization level (introduced with GCC 4.8):
A new general optimization level, -Og, has been introduced. It
addresses the need for fast compilation and a superior debugging
experience while providing a reasonable level of runtime performance.
Overall experience for development should be better than the default
optimization level -O0.
Can someone tell me the simple question why we need to put -o3 associates with -o in gcc to compile c program, simply it will help to increase the speed of compilation or reduced the time lapsed spending in compilation?
Thanks!!!
It can potentially increase the performance of the generated code.
In principle, compilation usually takes longer because this requires (much) more analysis by the compiler.
For typical modern C++ code, the effect of -O2 and higher can be very dramatic (an order of magnitude, depending on the nature of the program).
Precisely which optimizations are performed at the various optimization levels is documented in the manual pages: http://linux.die.net/man/1/gcc
Keep in mind, though that the various optimizations can potentially make latent bugs manifest, because compilers are allowed to exploit Undefined Behaviour¹ to achieve more efficient target code.
Undefined Behaviour lurks in places where the language standard(s) do not specify exactly what needs to happen. These can be extremely subtle.
So I recommend on using anything higher than -O2 unless you have rigid quality controls in place that guard against such hidden undefined behaviours (think of valgrind/purify, statical analysis tools and (stress) testing in general).
¹ A very profound blog about undefined behaviour in optimizing compilers is here: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/213 . In particular it let's you take the perspective of a compiler writer, whose only objective is to generate the fastest possible code that still satisfies the specifications.