Two studies in compiler optimisations

Interesting. It all seems very brittle, though. And that something has gone very wrong with our ecosystem of tools, languages, and processes when it becomes advisable to massage source until specific passes in a specific version LLVM don't mess things up for other passes.

Not picking on the OA in the slightest; just thinking in terms of holistic system design. If you know what you want to happen, and you are smart enough to introspect the behavior of the tool and decide that it didnt happen, you are more than smart enough to just write it correctly in the first place.

Perhaps that is unrealistic, perhaps there is a hidden iceberg of necessary but convolutive optimizations no human could realistically or legibly write. But ok, where do you really need to engage in this kind of optimization golf? Inlined functions?

Ok, what about this targeted language feature for a future-day Zig:

1. Write an ordinary zig function 2. Write inline assembly version of that function 3. Write a "comptime assert" that first compiles to second, which only "runs" for the relevant arch. 4. What should that assert mean? That the compiler just uses your assembly version instead, but _also_ uses existing compiler machinery or an external theorem prover to verify they "behave the same up to X", for customizable values of X

That has the right feel, maybe. You are "pinning" specific, vetted, optimizations without compromising the intent, readability, or correctness of your code. And easy iteration is possible, because a failing comptime assert will just dump the assembly; you can even start with an empty manual impl.

> Here, the simplification analysis uses the conditional hidden in the assert() macro to figure out that we only execute the urem instruction if cur < count (see the isImpliedByDomCondition() method). This can have the unexpected consequence of making builds with assertions enabled faster in some cases; we can restore performance by replacing disabled assertions with assume attributes, which have no runtime impact.

It surprises me that the compiler doesn't still take the inference from the assert and just disable emitting the code to perform the check. Over the last 15 years I've worked on many codebases that are written with unnecessary asserts, partly as documentation, but maybe because people assumed it helped the compiler.

I've also worked on many codebases (and written code like this on my own projects) where the code looks like: assert(condition); if (condition) { ... } because I still want that safety check in release builds, and want the exception in debug builds but absolutely not ever in release builds.

The assert-based optimization surprised me the first time I saw it in the wild. I had a hot path where I added an assert to document a precondition, and the generated code got measurably faster — the optimizer eliminated a downstream branch family it couldn't have known was dead otherwise.

The division UB case is thornier. In Rust you get explicit checked_div/wrapping_div, which makes the programmer's intent visible at the call site. The C approach of "trust that this is never zero" is the same mechanism but with none of the documentation.

> our optimisation relies on having r < count, but if count is zero this condition cannot be met. [Since taking the remainder of a division by zero is undefined behaviour, the compiler would be well within its rights to assume that count != 0 and proceed with the transformation.]

Interestingly, even if you define division by zero to produce the remainder equal to the dividend, this optimization (replacing "(r + 1) % count" with "r + 1 == count ? 0 : r + 1") would still be legal.

Do not check OP's art on a work machine lol

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]