This may sound a bit harsh, but I believe it needs to be said. Please don't take it personally; I don't mean it as an insult, especially since you already admitted that you "know next to no assembly." But if you think code like this:
CheckParity PROC
mov rax, 0
add rcx, 0
jnp jmp_over
mov rax, 1
jmp_over:
ret
CheckParity ENDP
will beat what a C compiler generates, then you really have no business using inline assembly. In just those 5 lines of code, I see 2 instructions that are glaringly sub-optimal. It could be optimized by just rewriting it slightly:
xor eax, eax
test ecx, ecx ; logically, should use RCX, but see below for behavior of PF
jnp jmp_over
mov eax, 1 ; or possibly even "inc eax"; would need to verify
jmp_over:
ret
Or, if you have random input values that are likely to foil the branch predictor (i.e., there is no predictable pattern to the parity of the input values), then it would be faster yet to remove the branch, writing it as:
xor eax, eax
test ecx, ecx
setp al
ret
Or perhaps the equivalent (which will be faster on certain processors, but not necessarily all):
xor eax, eax
test ecx, ecx
mov ecx, 1
cmovp eax, ecx
ret
And these are just the improvements I could see off the top of my head, given my existing knowledge of the x86 ISA and previous benchmarks that I have conducted. But lest anyone be fooled, this is undoubtedly not the fastest code, because (borrowing from Michael Abrash), "there ain't no such thing as the fastest code"—someone can virtually always make it faster yet.
There are enough problems with using inline assembly when you're an expert assembly-language programmer and a wizard when it comes to the intricacies of the x86 ISA. Optimizers are pretty darn good nowadays, which means it's hard enough for a true guru to produce better code (though certainly not impossible). It also takes trustworthy benchmarks that will verify your assumptions and confirm that your optimized inline assembly is actually faster. Never commit yourself to using inline assembly to outsmart the compiler's optimizer without running a good benchmark. I see no evidence in your question that you've done anything like this. I'm speculating here, but it looks like you saw that the code was written in assembly and assumed that meant it would be faster. That is rarely the case. C compilers ultimately emit assembly language code, too, and it is often more optimal than what us humans are capable of producing, given a finite amount of time and resources, much less limited expertise.
In this particular case, there is a notion that inline assembly will be faster than the C compiler's output, since the C compiler won't be able to intelligently use the x86 architecture's built-in parity flag (PF) to its benefit. And you might be right, but it's a pretty shaky assumption, far from universalizable. As I've said, optimizing compilers are pretty smart nowadays, and they do optimize to a particular architecture (assuming you specify the right options), so it would not at all surprise me that an optimizer would emit code that used PF. You'd have to look at the disassembly to see for sure.
As an example of what I mean, consider the highly specialized BSWAP instruction that x86 provides. You might naïvely think that inline assembly would be required to take advantage of it, but it isn't. The following C code compiles to a BSWAP instruction on almost all major compilers:
uint32 SwapBytes(uint32 x)
{
return ((x << 24) & 0xff000000 ) |
((x << 8) & 0x00ff0000 ) |
((x >> 8) & 0x0000ff00 ) |
((x >> 24) & 0x000000ff );
}
The performance will be equivalent, if not better, because the optimizer has more knowledge about what the code does. In fact, a major benefit this form has over inline assembly is that the compiler can perform constant folding with this code (i.e., when called with a compile-time constant). Plus, the code is more readable (at least, to a C programmer), much less error-prone, and considerably easier to maintain than if you'd used inline assembly. Oh, and did I mention it's reasonably portable if you ever wanted to target an architecture other than x86?
I know I'm making a big deal of this, and I want you to understand that I say this as someone who enjoys the challenge of writing highly-tuned assembly code that beats the compiler's optimizer in performance. But every time I do it, it's just that: a challenge, which comes with sacrifices. It isn't a panacea, and you need to remember to check your assumptions, including:
- Is this code actually a bottleneck in my application, such that optimizing it would even make any perceptible difference?
- Is the optimizer actually emitting sub-optimal machine language instructions for the code that I have written?
- Am I wrong in what I naïvely think is sub-optimal? Maybe the optimizer knows more than I do about the target architecture, and what looks like slow or sub-optimal code is actually faster. (Remember that less code is not necessarily faster.)
- Have I tested it in a meaningful, real-world benchmark, and proven that the compiler-generated code is slow and that my inline assembly is actually faster?
- Is there absolutely no way that I can tweak the C code to persuade the optimizer to emit better machine code that is close, equal to, or even superior to the performance of my inline assembly?
In an attempt to answer some of these questions, I set up a little benchmark. (Using MSVC, because that's what I have handy; if you're targeting GCC, it's best to use that compiler, but we can still get a general idea. I use and recommend Google's benchmarking library.) And I immediately ran into problems. See, I first run my benchmarks in "debugging" mode, with assertions compiled in that verify that my "tweaked"/"optimized" code is actually producing the same results for all test cases as the original code (that is presumably known to be working/correct). In this case, an assertion immediately fired. It turns out that the CheckParity routine written in assembly language does not return identical results to the parity64 routine written in C! Uh-oh. Well, that's another bullet we need to add to the above list:
- Have I ensured that my "optimized" code is returning the correct results?
This one is especially critical, because it's easy to make something faster if you also make it wrong. :-) I jest, but not entirely, because I've done this many times in the pursuit of faster code.
I believe Michael Petch has already pointed out the reason for the discrepancy: in the x86 implementation, the parity flag (PF) only concerns itself with the bits in the low byte, not the entire value. If that's all you need, then great. But even then, we can go back to the C code and further optimize it to do less work, which will make it faster—perhaps faster than the assembly code, eliminating the one advantage that inline assembly ever had.
For now, let's assume that you need the parity of the full value, since that's the original implementation you had that was working, and you're just trying to make it faster without changing its behavior. Thus, we need to fix the assembly code's logic before we can even proceed with meaningfully benchmarking it. Fortunately, since I am writing this answer late, Ajay Brahmakshatriya (with collaboration from others) has already done that work, saving me the extra effort.
…except, not quite. When I first drafted this answer, my benchmark revealed that draft 9 of his "tweaked" code still did not produce the same result as the original C function, so it's unsuitable according to our test cases. You say in a comment that his code "works" for you, which means either (A) the original C code was doing extra work, making it needlessly slow, meaning that you can probably tweak it to beat the inline assembly at its own game, or worse, (B) you have insufficient test cases and the new "optimized" code is actually a bug lying in wait. Since that time, Ped7g suggested a couple of fixes, which both fixed the bug causing the incorrect result to be returned, and further improved the code. The amount of input required here, and the number of drafts that he has gone through, should serve as testament to the difficulty of writing correct inline assembly to beat the compiler. But we're not even done yet! His inline assembly remains incorrectly written. SETcc instructions require an 8-bit register as their operand, but his code doesn't use a register specifier to request that, meaning that the code either won't compile (because Clang is smart enough to detect this error) or will compile on GCC but won't execute properly because that instruction has an invalid operand.
Have I convinced you about the importance of testing yet? I'll take it on faith, and move on to the benchmarking part. The benchmark results use the final draft of Ajay's code, with Ped7g's improvements, and my additional tweaks. I also compare some of the other solutions from that question you linked, modified for 64-bit integers, plus a couple of my own invention. Here are my benchmark results (mobile Haswell i7-4850HQ):
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Naive 36 ns 36 ns 19478261
OriginalCCode 4 ns 4 ns 194782609
Ajay_Brahmakshatriya_Tweaked 4 ns 4 ns 194782609
Shreyas_Shivalkar 37 ns 37 ns 17920000
TypeIA 5 ns 5 ns 154482759
TypeIA_Tweaked 4 ns 4 ns 160000000
has_even_parity 227 ns 229 ns 3200000
has_even_parity_Tweaked 36 ns 36 ns 19478261
GCC_builtin_parityll 4 ns 4 ns 186666667
PopCount 3 ns 3 ns 248888889
PopCount_Downlevel 5 ns 5 ns 100000000
Now, keep in mind that these are for randomly-generated 64-bit input values, which disrupts branch prediction. If your input values are biased in a predictable way, either towards parity or non-parity, then the branch predictor will work for you, rather than against you, and certain approaches may be faster. This underscores the importance of benchmarking against data that simulates real-world use cases. (That said, when I write general library functions, I tend to optimize for random inputs, balancing size and speed.)
Notice how the original C function compares to the others. I'm going to make the claim that optimizing it any further is probably a big fat waste of time. So hopefully you learned something more general from this answer, rather than just scrolled down to copy-paste the code snippets. :-)
The Naive function is a completely unoptimized sanity check to determine the parity, taken from here. I used it to validate even your original C code, and also to provide a baseline for the benchmarks. Since it loops through each bit, one-by-one, it is relatively slow, as expected:
unsigned int Naive(uint64 n)
{
bool parity = false;
while (n)
{
parity = !parity;
n &= (n - 1);
}
return parity;
}
OriginalCCode is exactly what it sounds like—it's the original C code that you had, as shown in the question. Notice how it posts up at exactly the same time as the tweaked/corrected version of Ajay Brahmakshatriya's inline assembly code! Now, since I ran this benchmark in MSVC, which doesn't support inline assembly for 64-bit builds, I had to use an external assembly module containing the function, and call it from there, which introduced some additional overhead. With GCC's inline assembly, the compiler probably would have been able to inline the code, thus eliding a function call. So on GCC, you might see the inline-assembly version be up to a nanosecond faster (or maybe not). Is that worth it? You be the judge. For reference, this is the code I tested for Ajay_Brahmakshatriya_Tweaked:
Ajay_Brahmakshatriya_Tweaked PROC
mov rax, rcx ; Windows 64-bit calling convention passes parameter in ECX (System V uses EDI)
shr rax, 32
xor rcx, rax
mov rax, rcx
shr rax, 16
xor rcx, rax
mov rax, rcx
shr rax, 8
xor eax, ecx ; Ped7g's TEST is redundant; XOR already sets PF
setnp al
movzx eax, al
ret
Ajay_Brahmakshatriya_Tweaked ENDP
The function named Shreyas_Shivalkar is from his answer here, which is just a variation on the loop-through-each-bit theme, and is, in keeping with expectations, slow:
Shreyas_Shivalkar PROC
; unsigned int parity = 0;
; while (x != 0)
; {
; parity ^= x;
; x >>= 1;
; }
; return (parity & 0x1);
xor eax, eax
test rcx, rcx
je SHORT Finished
Process:
xor eax, ecx
shr rcx, 1
jne SHORT Process
Finished:
and eax, 1
ret
Shreyas_Shivalkar ENDP
TypeIA and TypeIA_Tweaked are the code from this answer, modified to support 64-bit values, and my tweaked version. They parallelize the operation, resulting in a significant speed improvement over the loop-through-each-bit strategy. The "tweaked" version is based on an optimization originally suggested by Mathew Hendry to Sean Eron Anderson's Bit Twiddling Hacks, and does net us a tiny speed-up over the original.
unsigned int TypeIA(uint64 n)
{
n ^= n >> 32;
n ^= n >> 16;
n ^= n >> 8;
n ^= n >> 4;
n ^= n >> 2;
n ^= n >> 1;
return !((~n) & 1);
}
unsigned int TypeIA_Tweaked(uint64 n)
{
n ^= n >> 32;
n ^= n >> 16;
n ^= n >> 8;
n ^= n >> 4;
n &= 0xf;
return ((0x6996 >> n) & 1);
}
has_even_parity is based on the accepted answer to that question, modified to support 64-bit values. I knew this would be slow, since it's yet another loop-through-each-bit strategy, but obviously someone thought it was a good approach. It's interesting to see just how slow it actually is, even compared to what I termed the "naïve" approach, which does essentially the same thing, but faster, with less-complicated code.
unsigned int has_even_parity(uint64 n)
{
uint64 count = 0;
uint64 b = 1;
for (uint64 i = 0; i < 64; ++i)
{
if (n & (b << i)) { ++count; }
}
return (count % 2);
}
has_even_parity_Tweaked is an alternate version of the above that saves a branch by taking advantage of the fact that Boolean values are implicitly convertible into 0 and 1. It is substantially faster than the original, clocking in at a time comparable to the "naïve" approach:
unsigned int has_even_parity_Tweaked(uint64 n)
{
uint64 count = 0;
uint64 b = 1;
for (uint64 i = 0; i < 64; ++i)
{
count += static_cast<int>(static_cast<bool>(n & (b << i)));
}
return (count % 2);
}
Now we get into the good stuff. The function GCC_builtin_parityll consists of the assembly code that GCC would emit if you used its __builtin_parityll intrinsic. Several others have suggested that you use this intrinsic, and I must echo their endorsement. Its performance is on par with the best we've seen so far, and it has a couple of additional advantages: (1) it keeps the code simple and readable (simpler than the C version); (2) it is portable to different architectures, and can be expected to remain fast there, too; (3) as GCC improves its implementation, your code may get faster with a simple recompile. You get all the benefits of inline assembly, without any of the drawbacks.
GCC_builtin_parityll PROC ; GCC's __builtin_parityll
mov edx, ecx
shr rcx, 32
xor edx, ecx
mov eax, edx
shr edx, 16
xor eax, edx
xor al, ah
setnp al
movzx eax, al
ret
GCC_builtin_parityll ENDP
PopCount is an optimized implementation of my own invention. To come up with this, I went back and considered what we were actually trying to do. The definition of "parity" is an even number of set bits. Therefore, it can be calculated simply by counting the number of set bits and testing to see if that count is even or odd. That's two logical operations. As luck would have it, on recent generations of x86 processors (Intel Nehalem or AMD Barcelona, and newer), there is an instruction that counts the number of set bits—POPCNT (population count, or Hamming weight)—which allows us to write assembly code that does this in two operations.
(Okay, actually three instructions, because there is a bug in the implementation of POPCNT on certain microarchitectures that creates a false dependency on its destination register, and to ensure we get maximum throughput from the code, we need to break this dependency by pre-clearing the destination register. Fortunately, this a very cheap operation, one that can generally be handled for "free" by register renaming.)
PopCount PROC
xor eax, eax ; break false dependency
popcnt rax, rcx
and eax, 1
ret
PopCount ENDP
In fact, as it turns out, GCC knows to emit exactly this code for the __builtin_parityll intrinsic when you target a microarchitecture that supports POPCNT (otherwise, it uses the fallback implementation shown below). As you can see from the benchmarks, this is the fastest code yet. It isn't a major difference, so it's unlikely to matter unless you're doing this repeatedly within a tight loop, but it is a measurable difference and presumably you wouldn't be optimizing this so heavily unless your profiler indicated that this was a hot-spot.
But the POPCNT instruction does have the drawback of not being available on older processors, so I also measured a "fallback" version of the code that does a population count with a sequence of universally-supported instructions. That is the PopCount_Downlevel function, taken from my private library, originally adapted from this answer and other sources.
PopCount_Downlevel PROC
mov rax, rcx
shr rax, 1
mov rdx, 5555555555555555h
and rax, rdx
sub rcx, rax
mov rax, 3333333333333333h
mov rdx, rcx
and rcx, rax
shr rdx, 2
and rdx, rax
add rdx, rcx
mov rcx, 0FF0F0F0F0F0F0F0Fh
mov rax, rdx
shr rax, 4
add rax, rdx
mov rdx, 0FF01010101010101h
and rax, rcx
imul rax, rdx
shr rax, 56
and eax, 1
ret
PopCount_Downlevel ENDP
As you can see from the benchmarks, all of the bit-twiddling instructions that are required here exact a cost in performance. It is slower than POPCNT, but supported on all systems and still reasonably quick. If you needed a bit count anyway, this would be the best solution, especially since it can be written in pure C without the need to resort to inline assembly, potentially yielding even more speed:
unsigned int PopCount_Downlevel(uint64 n)
{
uint64 temp = n - ((n >> 1) & 0x5555555555555555ULL);
temp = (temp & 0x3333333333333333ULL) + ((temp >> 2) & 0x3333333333333333ULL);
temp = (temp + (temp >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0FULL;
temp = (temp * 0x0101010101010101ULL) >> 56;
return (temp & 1);
}
But run your own benchmarks to see if you wouldn't be better off with one of the other implementations, like OriginalCCode, which simplifies the operation and thus requires fewer total instructions. Fun fact: Intel's compiler (ICC) always uses a population count-based algorithm to implement __builtin_parityll; it emits a POPCNT instruction if the target architecture supports it, or otherwise, it simulates it using essentially the same code as I've shown here.
Or, better yet, just forget the whole complicated mess and let your compiler deal with it. That's what built-ins are for, and there's one for precisely this purpose.
