GCC optimization/ja

このガイドは、安全で分別のあるCFLAGSとCXXFLAGSを使ったコンパイル済みコードの最適化の導入を提供します. また、一般的な最適化の裏側にある理論について述べます.

CFLAGSとCXXFLAGSとは？
CFLAGSとCXXFLAGSは、ソースコードをコンパイルするときに使われるオプションをGNUコンパイラコレクションであるgccに伝えるために使われる環境変数です. CFLAGSはCで書かれたソースコード、CXXFLAGSはC++で書かれたソースコード用になります.

これらはプログラムのデバッグメッセージの量を減らすのに使われたり、エラーや警告のレベルを増加させたり、また、もちろん生成されるコードの最適化にも使われたりします. GCC manualに利用可能なフラグとその働きの完全なリストが記載されています.

どのように使われているのでしょうか？
CFLAGSとCXXFLAGSは二通り使われ方があります. 一つ目は、プログラム毎にautomakeにより生成されたMakefileと共に使う方法です.

しかしながら、この方法はPortageツリーの中にあるパッケージをインストールする際に使うべきではありません. その代わりに、Gentooベースのシステムではの と を設定します. この方法を使えば、全てのパッケージはあなたがに設定したフラグでコンパイルされるでしょう.

見てわかるとおり、CXXFLAGSはCFLAGSの中にある全てのフラグが設定されています. 大部分のシステムはこのように設定されるべきです. 通常のユースケースでは、 だけに追加のオプションを指定するようなことはほとんどありません.

よくある誤解
While  and   can be very effective means of getting source code to produce smaller and/or faster binaries, they can also impair the function of the code, bloat its size, slow down its execution time. Setting them incorrectly can even cause compilation failures!

are not a magic bullet; they will not automatically make the system run faster or reduce the size of binaries on the disk. Adding too many flags in an attempt to optimize (or "rice") the system is a sure recipe for failure. The point of diminishing returns is reached rather quickly when dealing with.

Despite the boasts and brags found on the internet, aggressive  and   are far more likely to harm binaries than to do any good. Keep in mind the flags are designed to be used at specific places for specific purposes. Few flags work as intended globally.

Ready?
Being aware of the risks involved, take a look at some sane, safe optimizations. These will hold in good stead and will be endearing to developers the next time a problem is reported on Bugzilla. (Developers will usually request the user to recompile a package with minimal  to see if the problem persists. Remember: aggressive flags can ruin code!)

基本
The goal behind  and   is to create code tailor-made to your system; it should function perfectly while being lean and fast, if possible. Sometimes these conditions are mutually exclusive, so this guide will stick to combinations known to work well. Ideally, they are the best available for any CPU architecture. For informational purposes, aggressive flag use will be covered later. Not every option listed on the GCC manual (there are hundreds) will be discussed, but basic, most common flags will be reviewed.

-march
The first and most important option is. This tells the compiler what code it should produce for the system's processor architecture (or arch); it tells GCC that it should produce code for a certain kind of CPU. Different CPUs have different capabilities, support different instruction sets, and have different ways of executing code. The  flag will instruct the compiler to produce specific code the system's CPU, with all its capabilities, features, instruction sets, quirks, and so on.

Even though the  variable in  specifies the general architecture used,   should still be used so that programs can be optimized for the system specific processor. x86 and x86-64 CPUs (among others) should make use of the  flag.

システムのCPUはどのようなものがありますでしょうか？調べるには、次のコマンドを実行します. :

To get more details, including  and   values, use:

Now lets see  in action. This example is for an older Pentium III chip:

ここでは、別の一つの64ビットのAMD CPUは次のとおりです. :

If the type of CPU is undetermined, or if the user does not know what setting to choose, it is possible use the  setting. When this flag is used, GCC will attempt to detect the processor and automatically set appropriate flags for it. However, this should not be used when intending to compile packages for different CPUs!

If compiling packages on one computer in order to run them on a different computer (such as when using a fast computer to build for an older, slower machine), then do not use. "Native" means that the code produced will run only on that type of CPU. The applications built with  on an AMD Athlon 64 CPU will not be able to run on an old VIA C3 CPU.

Also available are the  and   flags. These flags are normally only used when there is no available  option; certain processor architectures may require   or even. Unfortunately, GCC's behavior isn't very consistent with how each flag behaves from one architecture to the next.

On x86 and x86-64 CPUs,  will generate code specifically for that CPU using its available instruction sets and the correct ABI; it will have no backwards compatibility for older/different CPUs. Consider using  when generating code for older CPUs such as i386 and i486. produces more generic code than ; though it will tune code for a certain CPU, it does not take into account available instruction sets and ABI. Do not use  on x86 or x86-64 systems, as it is deprecated for those arches.

Only non-x86/x86-64 CPUs (such as Sparc, Alpha, and PowerPC) may require  or   instead of. On these architectures,  /   will sometimes behave just like   (on x86/x86-64) but with a different flag name. Again, GCC's behavior and flag naming is not consistent across architectures, so be sure to check the GCC manual to determine which one should be used.

-O
Next up is the  variable. This variable controls the overall level of optimization. Changing this value will make the code compilation take more time and will use much more memory, especially as the level of optimization is increased.

There are seven  settings: ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , and. Only use one of them in

With the exception of, the   settings each activate several additional flags, so be sure to read the GCC manual's chapter on optimization options to learn which flags are activated at each   level, as well as some explanations as to what they do.

私たちはそれぞれの最適化レベルを調べてみましょう:


 * : This level (that is the letter "O" followed by a zero) turns off optimization entirely and is the default if no  level is specified in   or  . This reduces compilation time and can improve debugging info, but some applications will not work properly without optimization enabled. This option is not recommended except for debugging purposes.


 * : the most basic optimization level. The compiler will try to produce faster, smaller code without taking much compilation time. It is basic, but it should get the job done all the time.


 * : A step up from . The recommended level of optimization unless the system has special needs.   will activate a few more flags in addition to the ones activated by  . With , the compiler will attempt to increase code performance without compromising on size, and without taking too much compilation time.


 * : the highest level of optimization possible. It enables optimizations that are expensive in terms of compile time and memory usage. Compiling with   is not a guaranteed way to improve performance, and in fact, in many cases, can slow down a system due to larger binaries and increased memory usage.   is also known to break several packages. Using   is not recommended.


 * : optimizes code for size. It activates all  options that do not increase the size of the generated code. It can be useful for machines that have extremely limited disk storage space and/or CPUs with small cache sizes.


 * : In GCC 4.8, a new general optimization level,, 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  .  Note that   does not imply  , it simply disables optimizations that may interfere with debugging.


 * : New in GCC 4.7, consists of  plus ,  , and  . This option breaks strict standards compliance, and is not recommended for use.

As previously mentioned,  is the recommended optimization level. If package compilation fails and while not using, try rebuilding with that option. As a fallback option, try setting the  and   to a lower optimization level, such as   or even   (for error reporting and checking for possible problems).

-pipe
A common flag is. This flag has no effect on the generated code, but it makes the compilation process faster. It tells the compiler to use pipes instead of temporary files during the different stages of compilation, which uses more memory. On systems with low memory, GCC might get killed. In those cases do not use this flag.

-fomit-frame-pointer
This is a very common flag designed to reduce generated code size. It is turned on at all levels of  (except  ) on architectures where doing so does not interfere with debugging (such as x86-64), but it may need to activated. In that case add it to the flags. Though the GCC manual does not specify all architectures, it is turned on by using the  option. Use the  option to explicitly activate it on x86, with GCC up to version 4.6 or when using. However, using this flag will make debugging hard or impossible.

In particular, it makes troubleshooting applications written in Java much harder, though Java is not the only code affected by using this flag. So while the flag can help, it also makes debugging harder; backtraces in particular will be useless. When not doing software debugging and no other debugging-related CFLAGS such as  have been used, then try using.

-msse, -msse2, -msse3, -mmmx, -m3dnow
These flags enable the Streaming SIMD Extentions (SSE), SSE2, SSE3, MMX, and 3DNow! instruction sets for x86 and x86-64 architectures. These are useful primarily in multimedia, gaming, and other floating point-intensive computing tasks, though they also contain several other mathematical enhancements. These instruction sets are found in more modern CPUs.

Normally none of these flags need to be added to, as long as the system is using the correct  (for example,   implies  ). Some notable exceptions are newer VIA and AMD64 CPUs that support instructions not implied by  (such as SSE3). For CPUs like these additional flags will need to be enabled where appropriate after checking.

But I get better performance with -funroll-loops -fomg-optimize!
No, you only think you do because someone has convinced you that more flags are better. Aggressive flags will only hurt applications when used system-wide. Even the GCC manual says that using  and   will make code larger and run more slowly. Yet for some reason, these two flags, along with,  ,  , and similar flags, continue to be very popular among ricers who want the biggest bragging rights.

The truth of the matter is that they are dangerously aggressive flags. Take a good look around the Gentoo Forums and Bugzilla to see what those flags do: nothing good!

You do not need to use those flags globally in  or. They will only hurt performance. They may make you sound like you have a high-performance system running on the bleeding edge, but they don't do anything but bloat the code and get your bugs marked INVALID or WONTFIX.

You don't need dangerous flags like these. Don't use them. Stick to the basics:,  , and.

What about -O levels higher than 3?
Some users boast about even better performance obtained by using,  , and so on, but the reality is that   levels higher than 3 have no effect. The compiler may accept CFLAGS like, but it actually doesn't do anything with them. It only performs the optimizations for, nothing more.

Need more proof? Examine the source code:

As you can see, any value higher than 3 is treated as just.

What about compiling outside the target machine?
Some readers might wonder if compiling outside the target machine with a strictly inferior CPU or GCC sub-architecture will result in inferior optimization results (compared to a native compilation). The answer is simple: No. Regardless of the actual hardware on which the compilation takes place and the CHOST for which GCC was built, as long as the same arguments are used (except for ) and the same version of GCC is used (although minor version might be different), the resulting optimizations are strictly the same.

To exemplify, if Gentoo is installed on a machine whose GCC's CHOST is i686-pc-linux-gnu, and a Distcc server is setup on another computer whose GCC's CHOST is i486-linux-gnu, then there is no need to be afraid that the results would be less optimal because of the strictly inferior sub-architecture of the remote compiler and/or hardware. The result would be as optimized as a native build, as long as the same options are passed to both compilers (and the  parameter doesn't get a   argument). In this particular case the target architecture needs to be specified explicitly as explained in Distcc and -march=native.

The only difference in behavior between two GCC versions built targeting different sub-architectures is the implicit default argument for the  parameter, which is derived from the GCC's CHOST when not explicitly provided in the command line.

What about redundant flags?
Oftentimes CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS that are turned on at various  levels are specified redundantly in. Sometimes this is done out of ignorance, but it is also done to avoid flag filtering or flag replacing.

Flag filtering/replacing is done in many of the ebuilds in the Portage tree. It is usually done because packages fail to compile at certain  levels, or when the source code is too sensitive for any additional flags to be used. The ebuild will either filter out some or all CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS, or it may replace  with a different level.

The Gentoo Developer Manual outlines where and how flag filtering/replacing works.

It's possible to circumvent  filtering by redundantly listing the flags for a certain level, such as , by doing things like:

However, this is not a smart thing to do. CFLAGS are filtered for a reason! When flags are filtered, it means that it is unsafe to build a package with those flags. Clearly, it is not safe to compile your whole system with  if some of the flags turned on by that level will cause problems with certain packages. Therefore, you shouldn't try to "outsmart" the developers who maintain those packages. Trust the developers. Flag filtering and replacing is done for your benefit! If an ebuild specifies alternative flags, then don't try to get around it.

You will most likely continue to run into problems when you build a package with unacceptable flags. When you report your troubles on Bugzilla, the flags you use in will be readily visible and you will be told to recompile without those flags. Save yourself the trouble of recompiling by not using redundant flags in the first place! Don't just automatically assume that you know better than the developers.

What about LDFLAGS?
The Gentoo developers have already set basic, safe LDFLAGS in the base profiles, so they do not need to be changed.

Can I use per-package flags?
Information on how to use per-package environment variables (including CFLAGS) is described in the Gentoo Handbook, "Per-Package Environment Variables".

Resources
The following resources are of some help in further understanding optimization:


 * GCC online documentation


 * Gentoo インストールハンドブックの第5章


 * man make.conf


 * Wikipedia


 * Gentoo Forums