https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11821

           Summary: dmd backend: redundant x86 instruction in a simple
                    loop
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: x86
               URL: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/nfobptpqpiueelhehbfy@for
                    um.dlang.org
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: gassa@mail.ru


--- Comment #0 from Ivan Kazmenko <gassa@mail.ru> 2013-12-26 02:12:34 PST ---
I am trying to figure out why win32 executables compiled from D source by dmd are usually somewhat slower than similar win32 programs compiled from C++ source by, for example, mingw-gcc.

I believe I found a relatively simple case where dmd puts a redundant instruction into the object code.

I have this simple D program:

-----
immutable int MAX_N = 1_000_000;
int main () {
    int [MAX_N] a;
    foreach (i; 0..MAX_N)
        a[i] = i;
    return a[7];
}
-----

The assembly (dmd -O -release -inline -noboundscheck, then obj2asm) has the following piece corresponding to the cycle:

-----
L2C:        mov    -03D0900h[EDX*4][EBP],EDX
        mov    ECX,EDX
        inc    EDX
        cmp    EDX,0F4240h
        jb    L2C
-----

Here, the second line "mov ECX, EDX" does not seem to serve any purpose at all.
 If this observation is correct, this instruction is an indication of a bug in
code generation, and fixing that bug may improve performance in more general
case.

The "return a[7]" part is to assure the whole loop need not be optimized out. The ldmd2 compiler reportedly does that when no return is present.  DMD however does not, however that is irrelevant to this issue.

Previous discussion: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/nfobptpqpiueelhehbfy@forum.dlang.org

Will attach source and disassembly in comments.

Ivan Kazmenko.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11821



--- Comment #1 from Ivan Kazmenko <gassa@mail.ru> 2013-12-26 02:13:47 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=1307)
source code of the demonstrating example

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11821



--- Comment #2 from Ivan Kazmenko <gassa@mail.ru> 2013-12-26 02:14:21 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=1308)
disassembly of the demonstrating example

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11821



--- Comment #3 from Ivan Kazmenko <gassa@mail.ru> 2013-12-26 02:27:09 PST ---
I should note that the exact compile command must be some sort of:

dmd a0.d -O -release -inline -noboundscheck -L/STACK:268435456

Otherwise, the default stack limit makes the program crash at runtime.

The "-L/STACK:268435456" does not affect the generated object file since it is used on linking stage.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11821


Maxim Fomin <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |maxim@maxim-fomin.ru


--- Comment #4 from Maxim Fomin <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> 2013-12-26 08:08:29 PST ---
This may be remainders from internally created variables. Compiler often rewrites high-level constructions to lower ones with implicitly introducing new variables. What you see from asm is their usage.

By the way, it is not a 'code generation bug', it is poor optimization.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------