[fpc-devel] Class field reordering
skybuck2000 at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 19 07:35:32 CEST 2012
> > I also wonder how much of an optimization it actually is ? Maybe
> > 0.000001%
> > more performance ?
> 1) as mentioned in the original mail, the current transformation is
> implemented for saving memory, not for improving performance
> This wasn't clear, it only mentions gaps. What kind of gaps ?
Gaps between fields of an object instance due to alignment. Typically
loading data from unaligned address, i.e. an address that is not evenly
divisible by the field size, is slower than otherwise. Also, some CPU
architectures even give you an exception if you actually try.
E.g. for the following object
test = class
b1 : byte;
d : double;
b2 : byte;
q : qword;
due to above hardware limitations an instance will look as follows in
memory (first column indicates offset, disregarding any additional
0 : b1
1-7 : <empty>
8-15 : d
16 : b2
So for storing 18 bytes of usable data, you use up 32 bytes in memory,
i.e. a waste of 44%.
Now imagine your program uses thousands of these records.
If it was in a record then that's what a "packed record" is for.
Perhaps pascal should be extended with "packed class".
I would like something like that... it makes more sense then some
weird/automatic/black box behaviour ;)
> I scanned over this document and it seems to mention "profiling
> information", it also mentions "compilers which can then use this
> information to re-arrange fields".
> To me it seems this optimization idea belongs in the realm of "profilers".
> It should be easy for a programmer to use such a profiling tool and make
> necessary changes him/herself instead of complexifieing the compiler.
> [.. snipped the rest...]
Imo for a static compiler like fpc, re-arranging fields for pure
performance reasons without reasonably accurate profiling information is
indeed pure guesswork."
I do not see a problem with automating this process.
I do see a bit of a problem with it. Computer programs can have many
options/variables which could have all kinds of values.
It's probably not practical to try every possible value because this would
take to long.
So automating it will be problematic.
> > I rarely inspect the binary equivalent of a class instance, so your
> > supposedly optimization is probably not a big deal, for records that
> > would
> > be a different matter since these are used in all kinds of api's and
> > input/output situations.
> As mentioned in the original mail, the transformation would only be
> to classes.
> How is a record not an abstraction and a class is an abstraction, that's
> kinda weird/inconsistent ?!
Because unfortunately people are already (mis-)using records by
blockwriting/reading them without knowing that this is not portable at
Actually such things already break e.g. when moving from 32 to 64 bit
processors, or from one cpu architecture to another with different
alignment rules, and so on. When 64 bit was new, there have been many
questions/issues about exactly that - on this list too.
It looks like a purely pragmatic decision. (And maybe sometime somewhere
the Borland people defined it that way for records).
Does this apply to "packed records" ? I would hope not.
> >>> It's already bad that Delphi adds invisible fields to classes so they
> >>> cannot be simply dumped to disk... (virtual method table pointers ?)
> >>> this would make it even worse.
> >> If you want to program at an assembler level of abstraction, don't use
> >> high level language features.
> > I see no reason why a high level language could not be used to produce
> > binary instructions and or files/data.
> It can be used for that, as long as you don't use high level abstractions.
> The whole point of abstractions to get rid of any guarantees a far as
> implementation is concerned, in order to increase portability, programmer
> productivity and compiler optimization opportunities.
> How about instead extending the pascal language description and
> that the order of the fields in the class and records must be the same in
> binary as well. This seems nice and constant and might allow some other
> functionalities in the future.
> That is not to say that this supposedly optimization could be done and
> later then removed if this order extension is introduced.
Given that not fixing the order has above mentioned tangible advantages
right now, and fixing the layout only some unknown ones in the future,
it seems the better choice to not do it. Also because it can still be
specified in the future if needed :)
So we agree.
Not really, if features/optimizations are implemented which need to be
removed in the future then that is again a lot of work to do.
Simply removing stuff/code takes time/energy/work as well.
More information about the fpc-devel