Refering to @auselen's answer here: Using ARM NEON intrinsics to add alpha and permute, looks like armcc compiler is far more better than the gcc compiler for NEON optimizations. Is this really true? I haven't really tried armcc compiler. But I got pretty optimized code using the gcc compiler with -O3 optimization flag. But now I'm wondering if armcc is really that good? So which of the two compiler is better, considering all the factors?
Compilers are software as well, they tend to improve over time. Any generic claim like armcc is better than GCC on NEON (or better said as vectorization) can't hold true forever since one developer group can close the gap with enough attention. However initially it is logical to expect compilers developed by hardware companies to be superior because they need to demonstrate/market these features.
One recent example I saw was here on Stack Overflow about an answer for branch prediction. Quoting from last line of updated section "This goes to show that even mature modern compilers can vary wildly in their ability to optimize code...".
I am a big fan of GCC, but I wouldn't bet on quality of code produced by it against compilers from Intel or ARM. I expect any mainstream commercial compiler to produce code at least as good as GCC.
One empirical answer to this question could be to use hilbert-space's neon optimization example and see how different compilers optimize it.
void neon_convert (uint8_t * __restrict dest, uint8_t * __restrict src, int n)
{
int i;
uint8x8_t rfac = vdup_n_u8 (77);
uint8x8_t gfac = vdup_n_u8 (151);
uint8x8_t bfac = vdup_n_u8 (28);
n/=8;
for (i=0; i<n; i++)
{
uint16x8_t temp;
uint8x8x3_t rgb = vld3_u8 (src);
uint8x8_t result;
temp = vmull_u8 (rgb.val[0], rfac);
temp = vmlal_u8 (temp,rgb.val[1], gfac);
temp = vmlal_u8 (temp,rgb.val[2], bfac);
result = vshrn_n_u16 (temp, 8);
vst1_u8 (dest, result);
src += 8*3;
dest += 8;
}
}
This is armcc 5.01
20: f421140d vld3.8 {d1-d3}, [r1]!
24: e2822001 add r2, r2, #1
28: f3810c04 vmull.u8 q0, d1, d4
2c: f3820805 vmlal.u8 q0, d2, d5
30: f3830806 vmlal.u8 q0, d3, d6
34: f2880810 vshrn.i16 d0, q0, #8
38: f400070d vst1.8 {d0}, [r0]!
3c: e1520003 cmp r2, r3
40: bafffff6 blt 20 <neon_convert+0x20>
This is GCC 4.4.3-4.7.1
1e: f961 040d vld3.8 {d16-d18}, [r1]!
22: 3301 adds r3, #1
24: 4293 cmp r3, r2
26: ffc0 4ca3 vmull.u8 q10, d16, d19
2a: ffc1 48a6 vmlal.u8 q10, d17, d22
2e: ffc2 48a7 vmlal.u8 q10, d18, d23
32: efc8 4834 vshrn.i16 d20, q10, #8
36: f940 470d vst1.8 {d20}, [r0]!
3a: d1f0 bne.n 1e <neon_convert+0x1e>
Which looks extremely similar, so we have a draw. After seeing this I tried mentioned add alpha and permute again.
void neonPermuteRGBtoBGRA(unsigned char* src, unsigned char* dst, int numPix)
{
numPix /= 8; //process 8 pixels at a time
uint8x8_t alpha = vdup_n_u8 (0xff);
for (int i=0; i<numPix; i++)
{
uint8x8x3_t rgb = vld3_u8 (src);
uint8x8x4_t bgra;
bgra.val[0] = rgb.val[2]; //these lines are slow
bgra.val[1] = rgb.val[1]; //these lines are slow
bgra.val[2] = rgb.val[0]; //these lines are slow
bgra.val[3] = alpha;
vst4_u8(dst, bgra);
src += 8*3;
dst += 8*4;
}
}
Compiling with gcc...
$ arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc --version
arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-2012.05-20120523 - Linaro GCC 2012.05) 4.7.1 20120514 (prerelease)
$ arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -std=c99 -O3 -c ~/temp/permute.c -marm -mfpu=neon-vfpv4 -mcpu=cortex-a9 -o ~/temp/permute_gcc.o
00000000 <neonPermuteRGBtoBGRA>:
0: e3520000 cmp r2, #0
4: e2823007 add r3, r2, #7
8: b1a02003 movlt r2, r3
c: e92d01f0 push {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8}
10: e1a021c2 asr r2, r2, #3
14: e24dd01c sub sp, sp, #28
18: e3520000 cmp r2, #0
1c: da000019 ble 88 <neonPermuteRGBtoBGRA+0x88>
20: e3a03000 mov r3, #0
24: f460040d vld3.8 {d16-d18}, [r0]!
28: eccd0b06 vstmia sp, {d16-d18}
2c: e59dc014 ldr ip, [sp, #20]
30: e2833001 add r3, r3, #1
34: e59d6010 ldr r6, [sp, #16]
38: e1530002 cmp r3, r2
3c: e59d8008 ldr r8, [sp, #8]
40: e1a0500c mov r5, ip
44: e59dc00c ldr ip, [sp, #12]
48: e1a04006 mov r4, r6
4c: f3c73e1f vmov.i8 d19, #255 ; 0xff
50: e1a06008 mov r6, r8
54: e59d8000 ldr r8, [sp]
58: e1a0700c mov r7, ip
5c: e59dc004 ldr ip, [sp, #4]
60: ec454b34 vmov d20, r4, r5
64: e1a04008 mov r4, r8
68: f26401b4 vorr d16, d20, d20
6c: e1a0500c mov r5, ip
70: ec476b35 vmov d21, r6, r7
74: f26511b5 vorr d17, d21, d21
78: ec454b34 vmov d20, r4, r5
7c: f26421b4 vorr d18, d20, d20
80: f441000d vst4.8 {d16-d19}, [r1]!
84: 1affffe6 bne 24 <neonPermuteRGBtoBGRA+0x24>
88: e28dd01c add sp, sp, #28
8c: e8bd01f0 pop {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8}
90: e12fff1e bx lr
Compiling with armcc...
$ armcc
ARM C/C++ Compiler, 5.01 [Build 113]
$ armcc --C99 --cpu=Cortex-A9 -O3 -c permute.c -o permute_arm.o
00000000 <neonPermuteRGBtoBGRA>:
0: e1a03fc2 asr r3, r2, #31
4: f3870e1f vmov.i8 d0, #255 ; 0xff
8: e0822ea3 add r2, r2, r3, lsr #29
c: e1a031c2 asr r3, r2, #3
10: e3a02000 mov r2, #0
14: ea000006 b 34 <neonPermuteRGBtoBGRA+0x34>
18: f420440d vld3.8 {d4-d6}, [r0]!
1c: e2822001 add r2, r2, #1
20: eeb01b45 vmov.f64 d1, d5
24: eeb02b46 vmov.f64 d2, d6
28: eeb05b40 vmov.f64 d5, d0
2c: eeb03b41 vmov.f64 d3, d1
30: f401200d vst4.8 {d2-d5}, [r1]!
34: e1520003 cmp r2, r3
38: bafffff6 blt 18 <neonPermuteRGBtoBGRA+0x18>
3c: e12fff1e bx lr
In this case armcc produces much better code. I think this justifies fgp's answer above. Most of the time GCC will produce good enough code, but you should keep an eye on critical parts or most importantly first you must measure / profile.