[9/*] This is what makes it so hard to work with CLANG for optimized code :( You never have any idea when it is going to critically break. You may carefully inspect some part of your code, and verify that it compiles to sane ASM... but it can change radically from a version bump.
-
Show this thread
-
[10/*] And furthermore, since the optimizer changes so dramatically from release to release, they may fix something broken (resulting in a speed win) and break something else (speed loss), so you can't even just use benchmarks to know things didn't regress.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
[11/*] You can use a profile to know the _total_ speed of your program didn't get slower, but several parts may have gotten slower due to CLANG optimizer freakouts, and as long as they improved other parts as much (or more!), you won't even know until you reanalyze manually.
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
[12/*] I am not an optimization person. I maybe spend a week every three months looking at ASM. This has happened to me _three times in the last year_. It's almost 100% of the time I've looked at CLANG ASM, I have hit something like this.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
[13/*] I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is. But I do think it would be a nice start for people to recognize that it _is_ a problem, because I think it really is.
3 replies 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
[14/*] As an example of a possible direction to go, perhaps we could have a new directive to the compiler that you could bracket pieces of code with that you have crafted carefully and analyzed.
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
[15/*] This directive could do some things, like limit reordering, try to translate intrinsics as directly as possible, etc., with an emphasis on _predictability_ rather than speed.
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likesShow this thread -
[16/*] This would allow programmers to have some confidence that when they've worked out the best way to do something, they can lock that in and know it won't get undone by crazy optimizer steps.
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
[17/*] The only alternative to something like this would be to write these parts in inline assembler, which honestly, would be fine with me - except the syntax for inline assembler is so horrid that it makes it very unpleasant to use.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
[18/*] So another option would be to get serious about inline assembler, and make a pleasant-to-use, well specific ASM syntax that can be placed in C. I'd be fine with either.
3 replies 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread
[19/*] What I'm increasingly less fine with is constantly having to struggle with CLANG to get it to _stop_ doing crazy things to routines that were already basically optimal if it just translated them directly. It's very frustrating, and sometimes literally can't be fixed :(
-
-
[20/*] That's all. I figured this has happened enough times now that I should post something about it.
8 replies 0 retweets 21 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.