Peephole optimization involves changing the small set of instructions to an equivalent set that has better performance.
For example, instead of pushing register A onto the stack and then immediately popping the value back into register A, a peephole optimization would remove both instructions.
Instead of adding A to A, a peephole optimization might do an arithmetic shift left.
Instead of multiplying a floating point register by 8, a peephole optimization might scale the floating point register's exponent by 3.
Instead of multiplying an index by 4, adding the result to a base address to get a pointer value, and then dereferencing the pointer, a peephole optimization may use a hardware addressing mode that accomplishes the same result with one instruction.
The term peephole optimization was introduced by William Marshall McKeeman in 1965.
Common techniques applied in peephole optimization:
- Null sequences – Delete useless operations.
- Combine operations – Replace several operations with one equivalent.
- Algebraic laws – Use algebraic laws to simplify or reorder instructions.
- Special case instructions – Use instructions designed for special operand cases.
- Address mode operations – Use address modes to simplify code.
There can be other types of peephole optimizations.
This section does not cite any sources. (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Replacing slow instructions with faster ones
The following Java bytecode
... aload 1 aload 1 mul ...
can be replaced by
... aload 1 dup mul ...
This kind of optimization, like most peephole optimizations, makes certain assumptions about the efficiency of instructions. For instance, in this case, it is assumed that the
dup operation (which duplicates and pushes the top of the stack) is more efficient than the
aload X operation (which loads a local variable identified as
X and pushes it on the stack).
Removing redundant code
Another example is to eliminate redundant load stores.
a = b + c; d = a + e;
is straightforwardly implemented as
MOV b, R0 ; Copy b to the register ADD c, R0 ; Add c to the register, the register is now b+c MOV R0, a ; Copy the register to a MOV a, R0 ; Copy a to the register ADD e, R0 ; Add e to the register, the register is now a+e [(b+c)+e] MOV R0, d ; Copy the register to d
but can be optimised to
MOV b, R0 ; Copy b to the register ADD c, R0 ; Add c to the register, which is now b+c (a) MOV R0, a ; Copy the register to a ADD e, R0 ; Add e to the register, which is now b+c+e [(a)+e] MOV R0, d ; Copy the register to d
Removing redundant stack instructions
If the compiler saves registers on the stack before calling a subroutine and restores them when returning, consecutive calls to subroutines may have redundant stack instructions.
Suppose the compiler generates the following Z80 instructions for each procedure call:
PUSH AF PUSH BC PUSH DE PUSH HL CALL _ADDR POP HL POP DE POP BC POP AF
If there were two consecutive subroutine calls, they would look like this:
PUSH AF PUSH BC PUSH DE PUSH HL CALL _ADDR1 POP HL POP DE POP BC POP AF PUSH AF PUSH BC PUSH DE PUSH HL CALL _ADDR2 POP HL POP DE POP BC POP AF
The sequence POP regs followed by PUSH for the same registers is generally redundant. In cases where it is redundant, a peephole optimization would remove these instructions. In the example, this would cause another redundant POP/PUSH pair to appear in the peephole, and these would be removed in turn. Assuming that subroutine _ADDR2 does not depend on previous register values, removing all of the redundant code in the example above would eventually leave the following code:
PUSH AF PUSH BC PUSH DE PUSH HL CALL _ADDR1 CALL _ADDR2 POP HL POP DE POP BC POP AF
- Object code optimizers, discussion in relation to general algorithmic efficiency
- Capex Corporation – produced the COBOL optimizer, an early mainframe object code optimizer for IBM Cobol
- Digital Research XLT86, an optimizing assembly source-to-source compiler
- Muchnick, Steven Stanley (1997-08-15). Advanced Compiler Design and Implementation. Academic Press / Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 978-1-55860-320-2.
- McKeeman, William Marshall (July 1965). "Peephole optimization". Communications of the ACM. 8 (7): 443–444. doi:10.1145/364995.365000.
- Fischer, Charles N.; Cytron, Ron K.; LeBlanc, Jr., Richard J. (2010). Crafting a Compiler (PDF). Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-13-606705-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-07-03. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
- Aho, Alfred Vaino; Lam, Monica Sin-Ling; Sethi, Ravi; Ullman, Jeffrey David (2007). "Chapter 8.9.2 Code Generation by Tiling an Input Tree". Compilers – Principles, Techniques, & Tools (PDF) (2 ed.). Pearson Education. p. 540. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-06-10. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
The dictionary definition of peephole optimization at Wiktionary