I have a custom ASSERT(...) macro which I use in a C++ application.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>
/// ASSERT(expr) checks if expr is true. If not, error details are logged
/// and the process is exited with a non-zero code.
#ifdef INCLUDE_ASSERTIONS
#define ASSERT(expr) \
if (!(expr)) { \
char buf[4096]; \
snprintf (buf, 4096, "Assertion failed in \"%s\", line %d\n%s\n", \
__FILE__, __LINE__, #expr); \
std::cerr << buf; \
::abort(); \
} \
else // This 'else' exists to catch the user's following semicolon
#else
#define ASSERT(expr)
#endif
Recently I was reading some Linux kernel module code and came across the existence of likely(...) and unlikely(...) macros. These provide a hint to the CPU that a given branch is more likely, and that the pipeline should optimise for that path.
Assertions are, by definition, expected to evaluate to true (i.e. likely).
Can I provide a similar hint in my ASSERT macro? What's the underlying mechanism here?
Obviously I will measure for any difference in performance, but in theory should it make any difference?
I only run my code on Linux, but would be interested to know if there's a cross platform way of doing this too. I'm also using gcc, but would like to support clang as well.
The performance gain is not likely to be significant, but this is how those linux kernel macros are defined:
#define likely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 1)
#define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
So, you could modify your condition like this (assuming that expr is expected to be true and therefore !(expr) is expected to be false):
if (__builtin_expect(!(expr), 0)) {
Or you could define the same macros as the kernel and use them for better readability.
This is gcc builtin, so not portable of course.
This suggests that clang also supports the builtin. Othrwise, you can use the above macros and conditionally define them like #define likely(x) (x) on compilers that don't support the builtin.
In your case, the prediction is going to be good (either that or you're aborting), so there shouldn't be a risk of pessimisation, but if you do consider using the builtin more widely, here's a word of advice from gcc documentation:
In general, you should prefer to use actual profile feedback for this (-fprofile-arcs), as programmers are notoriously bad at predicting how their programs actually perform.