Re: Can you write code directly in CIL ???


"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:uvvaatpCGHA.4004@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Peter,
>
> You don't understand a fundamental concept to .NET and CIL. Yes, there are
> compilers that will perform optimization of IL to a certain degree.
>
> However, when the managed code is run, the CLR will take the CIL and then
> compile it into native code. At this point in time, it is free to optimize,
> or not optimize, or mangle your code in any way you want when making the
> transition from CIL to native code.
>
> When you are dealing with assembly language in general, you have complete
> control of what is going on, memory allocation, deallocation, execution, etc,
> etc. With the CLR, this is taken out of your hands to a degree.

I don't care about these things they are not effecting my performance. What is
effecting my performance are things such as the compiler failing to inline my
functions code, and unnecessary overhead in the translation of a switch
statement. My function will be always executed several million times every
second. It must run concurrently with other applications.

>
> For example, have you considered, what happens when a Garbage Collection
> (GC) occurs while your function is running? If it is in complete managed
> code, then there is nothing that you can do about it, and your function will
> resume running when the GC is complete. Depending on what is happening on the
> machine at the time, combined with what your program is doing, etc, etc, it is
> very feasible that your code will take more than 1/10th of a second.
My code knows exactly how much memory it needs at load time. It needs all of
this memory the whole time that it executes. It would make no sense to have any
garbage collection of my code's memory in this case. I want my code to be
implemented as a .ET component.

>
> Just because it looks like assembly language, don't assume that CIL is
> assembly language. There are some very different things going on under the
> hood.
>
> --
> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
> - mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:xj2sf.37906$QW2.34052@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>I want to be able to stick with purely managed code, if possible. I just need
>>this 100 line function to run as fast as if it was hand tweaked assembly
>>language. I have examined CIL, for the most part it is essentially assembly
>>language. From what I understand any optimizations take place before the CIL
>>is generated. When I designed this system (in 1998) I had hand tweaked
>>assembly language in mind for this crucial function all along.
>>
>> "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:%23RjK3$oCGHA.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> Not at all. When the CLR gets a hold of the JIT, it is free to perform
>>> any optimizations it deems necessary, and that might not necessarily be in
>>> line with what you are expecting.
>>>
>>> My recommendation would be to use Managed C++ to create a wrapper to your
>>> unmanaged code which uses It Just Works (IJW, seriously). You should get a
>>> managed interface, and the best possible performance (for this specific
>>> situation, not all situations) between managed an unmanaged code.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
>>> - mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:_51sf.37898$QW2.37853@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>I need the best possible execution speed. I have found that there is a large
>>>>difference in the quality of the code generated by the various compilers. I
>>>>have 16,000 hours of development time in my current project. There is a 100
>>>>line function that must take no longer than 1/10 second to execute. I can
>>>>just barely achieve this with MSVC++ 6.0. MSVC++ 7.0 has had some of its
>>>>optimizations disabled. I eventually will need to port this to C# .NET. This
>>>>is a case where hand tweaked assembly language would be appropriate. I
>>>>figured that hand tweaked CIL would be the .NET equivalent of hand tweaked
>>>>assembly language.
>>>>
>>>> "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>> message news:OCvd7unCGHA.2644@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> You can write it, but you would have to create a module with IL, and
>>>>> then compile that into your assembly (or just write the whole assembly).
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, what optimizations do you think you can make? Ultimately, you
>>>>> suffer from the fact that Windows is not a real-time OS, and nothing you
>>>>> can do will change that. On top of that, the JIT is what's going to
>>>>> optimize your code again after you try to, so you might actually end up
>>>>> hurting yourself more than helping yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you post the code you are trying to optimize, we can try and tell
>>>>> you where you might make some improvements, but dipping down to the IL
>>>>> level is most likely not going to help you much.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
>>>>> - mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:7t%rf.37887$QW2.9998@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Cab you write code directly in the Common Intermediate language? I need
>>>>>> to optimize a critical real-time function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can you write code directly in CIL ???
    ... You don't understand a fundamental concept to .NET and CIL. ... are compilers that will perform optimization of IL to a certain degree. ... Just because it looks like assembly language, ... From what I understand any optimizations take place ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Can you write code directly in CIL ???
    ... language. ... From what I understand any optimizations take place before the CIL is ... >>that hand tweaked CIL would be the .NET equivalent of hand tweaked assembly ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)