"for loop" code in assembly language

Dear Experts,

Recently, I am doing the different  script & different program language execution time study and tutorial. For example, the following simple C++ "for loop" is completed within 0.01 second(10ms).

My question could I have simple assembly code  with output result is  same as  the followingC++ code for me to do the program running time study ? Now I am using masm32's ml.exe and link.exe, and it spent me a lot of time for installation since I used assembly language  before for a long long time ago. I don't want to directly convert C++ code into Asm code by g++  option since the execution time  for both will be same based on same C++ code . Just want the assembly code in as simple or less code as possible.

Please advise

Rwniceng
int main(){
int max = 2e8;
int a,b,c;
for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
    a = 1234 + 5678 + i;
    b = 1234 * 5678 + i;
	c=1234/2+i;
   }
return 0;
}

Open in new window

LVL 1
rwniceingAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

trinitrotolueneDirector - Software EngineeringCommented:
Assembly instructions aren't generic. Assembly code will depend on the processor's instruction set. So which processor are you targeting?

Anyway it will usually involve a combination of the following :

- load values into registers
- store values in memory
- perform basic arithmetic ops
- load into the accumulator

If you have been able to look at the assembly code then it shouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer and pull out the assembly instructions you need
0
rwniceingAuthor Commented:
Now I am doing benchmark testing on window 7. I think it is  32-bit target, right ?

I am using masm32
0
trinitrotolueneDirector - Software EngineeringCommented:
not necessarily. Win 7 can run on both 32 and 64 bit processors. You need to check your processor specs and then look at its instruction set and write the code accordingly
0
Ultimate Tool Kit for Technology Solution Provider

Broken down into practical pointers and step-by-step instructions, the IT Service Excellence Tool Kit delivers expert advice for technology solution providers. Get your free copy now.

rwniceingAuthor Commented:
and gcc+ on window is also targeted for 32-bit, Right ?

How cl.exe from visual studio 2013, when I compile C++ program, it will target to 32 or 64 bit ?

So now , if I use g++ and masm32 for C and Aseembly code that will be fair to do th benchmark testing

Please advise
0
rwniceingAuthor Commented:
both program code are running for 32-bit with the same processor and same computer , why you concern the processor type ?

My systeminfo:

window7 64-bit
Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU P6300 @ 2.27GHz 2.27GHz (dual core)
0
phoffricCommented:
Timing the code in the OP is likely misleading. Timing tests should be done with optimization on (in VS 2010 can use Release Mode). The extra integer operations are combined in both Release and Debug modes. You should look at the generated output in order to devise good timing tests. In Release mode, your code generates hardly any output since the compiler realizes that there is nothing to do. To change significantly the assembly code generated, replace your return 0; with my return statement
int main(){
   int max = 2e8;
   int a,b,c;
   for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
      a = 1234 + 5678 + i; // even in debug mode, compiler combines 1234 + 5678
      b = 1234 * 5678 + i; // even in debug mode, compiler combines 1234 * 5678
      c=1234/2+i; // even in debug mode, compiler combines 1234/2
   }
   return 0;
//   return a/2 + b/3 + c*4;
}

Open in new window

0
rwniceingAuthor Commented:
So, what is  assembly code on window 7 64-bit with Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU P6300 @ 2.27GHz 2.27GHz (dual core)  for simulating the following C++ code ?
Actually I can get ASM code if  convert C++ code to ASM code with g++ option but it is not target  or it is same for the running time.

int main(){
int max = 2e8;
int a,b,c;
for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
    a = 1234 + 5678 + i;
    b = 1234 * 5678 + i;
	c=1234/2+i;
   }
return 0;
}

Open in new window


In other words, any effiicient  ASM code is better than from C++ code converting to ASM code ?

Other question or thought:
If you can write the window 7 from ASM code instead of C++ , the window 7 will run 10x faster as Apple OS  but the man power resource required  for doing that is 10X expensive  more than C++ window 7 & or 8.1 since ASM coding line is in term of 10,000 unit
0
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
The speed up for ASM is rarely more than 1.5 times faster than C++ .  C++ compilers these days are very efficient.  Even if you had 50 geniuses rewriting Windows 7 in ASM, you would not get that kind of speed up.  That also ignores things like disk access time which will not change just because you used ASM.  

What would change is your ability to maintain the code base and fix problems.  C and C++ automate the interfaces between modules.  You would have to do that manually in ASM.  Typing errors would become much more common.
0
ozoCommented:
Although it may often be possible to write assembly code that is faster than the fastest equivalent code you could write in c++,
it may not be maintainable code because for any little change, the optimal code might involve a complete change in how registers are allocated, which an optimizing c++ compiler could do automatically, but which could be ridiculous to do if you were trying to maintain the same thing in assembly.
Where assembly code can be worthwhile might be in the middle of tight loops that are executed a lot, and which you don't expect to change any time soon.

The above is a tight loop, but in this case the optimization would be to not loop at all.
0
phoffricCommented:
>> the following simple C++ "for loop" is completed within 0.01 second(10ms).
     The point of my previous comment was to point out that your timing test has little meaning since I assume you used the optimization flag rather than the debug flag. If you timed the exact code in your OP with optimization on, then the time is meaningless because the actual machine code generated for the body is essentially a no-op. There will not even be a loop condition since the optimizer sees that all computations are thrown away, so it rightly assumes that there is no need to compute anything.

You response to my previous comment made me think that I may not have made myself clear. If you use my modified return statement (return a/2 + b/3 + c*4;), then machine code for the loop and the loop's body will be generated and a timing test will then have meaning.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
rwniceingAuthor Commented:
Phoffirce, thansk for your good rely. I review your post again, I am still not clear

Before talking about ASM code, my timing test for C++ code might be wrong and result is misleading. From your post, my timing  test for C++ code is  no meaning since C++ compiler think it is nothing to do within the for loop, so it run faster and it's misleading, right ?

When I compile it by gc++
g++ speed.cpp -o speed

Which is compiled in Release Mode, Right  ?

Could you describe more  about terminology of Debug or Release mode in C++ compiler respectively that I get a little bit confusing ? Any good aticles is about that topic ?

I tried to do change it from return 0 to return a/2 + b/3 + c*4 as you said but the result is same, it still output timing is 11ms from getmilliCOunt() function in C++

Please review my cpp code as follows,  I ran it at linux shell wiht "./speed"
Please advise

#ifndef STDIO_H
#include <stdio.h>
#define STDIO_H 
#endif
#include <iostream>
#include <sys/timeb.h>
using namespace std;
int getMilliCount(){
	timeb tb;
	ftime(&tb);
	int nCount = tb.millitm + (tb.time & 0xfffff) * 1000;
	return nCount;
}int getMilliSpan(int nTimeStart){
	int nSpan = getMilliCount() - nTimeStart;
	if(nSpan < 0)
		nSpan += 0x100000 * 1000;
	return nSpan;
}
int main(){
int max = 2e6;
int a,b,c;
	// CODE YOU WANT TO TIME
	int start = getMilliCount();
	for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
    a = 1234 + 5678 + i;
    b = 1234 * 5678 + i;
	c=1234/2+i;
   }
int milliSecondsElapsed = getMilliSpan(start);
printf("\n\nElapsed time = %u milliseconds %d\n", milliSecondsElapsed,max);
 return a/2 + b/3 + c*4;
}

Open in new window

0
rwniceingAuthor Commented:
ozo, from your post, Now I get better understanding, compiler  C++ will do optimization  automatically so its code can run faster( than classic C Language that I need to prove it).  In Compile C++ optimization, compiler might treat the "for loop" is  nothing to be executed since it's nothing to do besides just variable adding and main() is nothing return beside "0", so the output code is just making  single simple code to call single memory copy for final  a,b,c variable  change with last i=2e6  since the "for loop" function is no other meaning code such as printf("a=%d",a) in "for loop" so that after C++ optimization, The following code is just optimized from taking out "for loop" which may NOT be same as the OP code(not opcode) from C++, but just idea if we have single printf() before return 0;
int main(){
int max = 2e8;
int a,b,c,i; i=max;
a = 1234 + 5678 + 2e8;b = 1234 * 5678 + 2e8;c=1234/2+2e8;
printf("%d=%d=%d\n",a,b,c);
return 0;
}

Open in new window


it will run faster but it is not fair to compare the timing test  with ASM code.
0
rwniceingAuthor Commented:
This link describe gcc/g++ for  disable and enable optimization option and level
http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/gccintro/gccintro_49.html

Since I've  used the g++ not including -Ox flag so the compiled code result on the topic post is non-optimization, in other words, the for loop operation  is executed. For optimization option enabled, the "for loop" is NOT included.

The time result I get for the optimization and non-optimization on the  c++ program is recorded as follows on linux apache VPS server  and showed that optimization code run faster than normal one.

Variable(Max)  NON-Optimization  Optimization
===================================
2e6                             10ms                   4ms
2e8                             1105ms               560ms

Since the timing result on c++ program is changed largely from max=2e6 to 2e8 on the non-optimzation version, so it proved the for loop is running  and also check its  asm code  that looping code  is also included. how to get asm code from  g++ , the link  describes it at https://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/ehchua/programming/cpp/gcc_make.html



Rwniceing
0
rwniceingAuthor Commented:
For timing analysis on different program language , it prefer to compare code without smart optimization from compiler . Efficient  code writing will improve the code speed but not too much to be improved. For the topic answer, I suggest to using g++ with non-optimization option and -S option to generate non-optimization ASM code, and based the ASM code and re-write the code and see there is any code improvement or not, and then do the timing comparison between new improving ASM code and C++ code that will be a fair timing test  since both different language has NO any smart optimization and NO skip-code or No skip-function optimization included.

Thanks for all of your reply. This will continue in new thread for asm language code improvement in code efficient writing.

Rwniceing
0
trinitrotolueneDirector - Software EngineeringCommented:
note that the compiler generated assembly code isn't the only way to code the logic. I can write out several variations of a set of assembly instructions which have the same final objective.

So just setting g++ to use the non-optimization option isn't going to work always.

What about using a different compiler with a different setting?

So in effect it comes down to the implementation of the compiler and in other words how the coder decides to write the assembly
0
rwniceingAuthor Commented:
Classical C is running faster than C++ on my topic post code that might not be interesting since I thought the root cause similar to as your first post in this thread. Small task use Small-size register or memory  to achieve output  faster than Small task use Big tools, big register or big memory.

My study example might be too small for timing benchmark of different language
which include, script, c, c++,c#,javascript, nodejs, php, asp, asm....etc

So I might need to choose other good example code
0
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
Your test code above is far too simple for useful measurements.  This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_%28computing%29#Open_source_benchmarks list common benchmark programs that are actually used to measure CPU and computer performance.
0
phoffricCommented:
>> Could you describe more  about terminology of Debug or Release mode in C++
   For Release mode, use -O2; Debug mode, use -g.

Here are results that shows that there are no loops executed when using -O2 when the function returns 0 and does not use the calculations in the loops. I am using nested loops.

Notice that I am now using the += operation. You can revert back to the = operation and may see surprising timing results (depending on your platform and compiler version).
#ifndef STDIO_H
#include <stdio.h>
#define STDIO_H 
#endif
#include <iostream>
#include <sys/timeb.h>
using namespace std;
int getMilliCount(){
   timeb tb;
   ftime(&tb);
   int nCount = tb.millitm + (tb.time & 0xfffff) * 1000;
   return nCount;
}int getMilliSpan(int nTimeStart){
   int nSpan = getMilliCount() - nTimeStart;
   if(nSpan < 0)
      nSpan += 0x100000 * 1000;
   return nSpan;
}

int foo(unsigned long long loopCnt) {
   unsigned int a=0,b=0,c=0;

   // CODE YOU WANT TO TIME
   int start = getMilliCount();
   for (unsigned long long i = 0; i < loopCnt; i++) {
      for(unsigned long long j = 0; j < loopCnt/4; j++) {
         a += 1234 + 5678 + i + j;
         b += 1234 * 5678 + i + j;
         c += 1234/2+i+j;
      }
   }
   int msElapsed = getMilliSpan(start);
   printf("Elapsed time = %4u ms    Loop Count = %.1e\n", msElapsed, (float)loopCnt);
   return 0;
//   return a + b + c;
}

int main(){
   unsigned int x, y, z=5;
   
   x = foo(2e3L);
   y = foo(2e4L);
   z = foo(2e5L);
   printf("%u %u %u\n", x, y, z);
}

Open in new window

Following output is for return a+b+c case:
paulh@ubuntu:~/EE/Test$ rm a.out; g++ -O2 speed.cpp && ./a.out 
Elapsed time =    1 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+03
Elapsed time =  145 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+04
Elapsed time = 14404 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+05
4246405632 2889473536 2998446080
paulh@ubuntu:~/EE/Test$ rm a.out; g++ -O speed.cpp && ./a.out 
Elapsed time =    2 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+03
Elapsed time =  145 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+04
Elapsed time = 14292 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+05
4246405632 2889473536 2998446080

Following output is for "return 0" case:
paulh@ubuntu:~/EE/Test$ rm a.out; g++ -O2 speed.cpp && ./a.out 
Elapsed time =    0 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+03
Elapsed time =    0 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+04
Elapsed time =    0 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+05
0 0 0
paulh@ubuntu:~/EE/Test$ rm a.out; g++ -O speed.cpp && ./a.out 
Elapsed time =    1 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+03
Elapsed time =   98 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+04
Elapsed time = 9532 ms    Loop Count = 2.0e+05
0 0 0

Open in new window

0
rwniceingAuthor Commented:
phoffric, now I understood clearly what you said in your previous posts, thank for your reply.

For my memo :

This link describes  a tools for  performance benchmarking  for different  Game programs from using different languages on x86(1 or 4cores)  and  x64(one and 4 cores) processor at
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programs-are-fastest.php
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Assembly

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.