compiler errors - Page 102

How to handle execvp(...) errors after fork()?

- by Lukasz Lew

I do the regular thing: fork() execvp(cmd, ) in child If execvp fails because no cmd is found, how can I notice this error in parent process?

Effective optimization strategies on modern C++ compilers

I'm working on scientific code that is very performance-critical. An initial version of the code has been written and tested, and now, with profiler in hand, it's time to start shaving cycles from the hot spots. It's well-known that some optimizations, e.g. loop unrolling, are handled these days much more effectively by the compiler than by a programmer meddling by hand. Which techniques are still worthwhile? Obviously, I'll run everything I try through a profiler, but if there's conventional wisdom as to what tends to work and what doesn't, it would save me significant time. I know that optimization is very compiler- and architecture- dependent. I'm using Intel's C++ compiler targeting the Core 2 Duo, but I'm also interested in what works well for gcc, or for "any modern compiler." Here are some concrete ideas I'm considering: Is there any benefit to replacing STL containers/algorithms with hand-rolled ones? In particular, my program includes a very large priority queue (currently a std::priority_queue) whose manipulation is taking a lot of total time. Is this something worth looking into, or is the STL implementation already likely the fastest possible? Along similar lines, for std::vectors whose needed sizes are unknown but have a reasonably small upper bound, is it profitable to replace them with statically-allocated arrays? I've found that dynamic memory allocation is often a severe bottleneck, and that eliminating it can lead to significant speedups. As a consequence I'm interesting in the performance tradeoffs of returning large temporary data structures by value vs. returning by pointer vs. passing the result in by reference. Is there a way to reliably determine whether or not the compiler will use RVO for a given method (assuming the caller doesn't need to modify the result, of course)? How cache-aware do compilers tend to be? For example, is it worth looking into reordering nested loops? Given the scientific nature of the program, floating-point numbers are used everywhere. A significant bottleneck in my code used to be conversions from floating point to integers: the compiler would emit code to save the current rounding mode, change it, perform the conversion, then restore the old rounding mode --- even though nothing in the program ever changed the rounding mode! Disabling this behavior significantly sped up my code. Are there any similar floating-point-related gotchas I should be aware of? One consequence of C++ being compiled and linked separately is that the compiler is unable to do what would seem to be very simple optimizations, such as move method calls like strlen() out of the termination conditions of loop. Are there any optimization like this one that I should look out for because they can't be done by the compiler and must be done by hand? On the flip side, are there any techniques I should avoid because they are likely to interfere with the compiler's ability to automatically optimize code? Lastly, to nip certain kinds of answers in the bud: I understand that optimization has a cost in terms of complexity, reliability, and maintainability. For this particular application, increased performance is worth these costs. I understand that the best optimizations are often to improve the high-level algorithms, and this has already been done.

Search Results

Search found 16218 results on 649 pages for 'compiler errors'.

Page 102/649 | < Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 | Next Page >

- by Lukasz Lew

- by user168715

- by Shawn

- by MonkeyBonkey

- by Coder

- by igor

- by lowellk

- by Sci-fi

- by daniel Crabbe

- by asdf

- by Max

- by user1334120

- by James

- by Berlin Brown

- by Botondus

- by darcy

- by froadie

- by sm81095

- by Michael

- by Waxhead

- by RyanW

- by Mike Curry

- by foob

- by Kurt Ricci

- by Zeeshan

< Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 | Next Page >