mikeash.com: just this guy, you know?

Posted at 2009-04-24 01:35 | RSS feed (Full text feed) | Blog Index
Next article: Friday Q&A 2009-05-01: On Hold
Previous article: Friday Q&A 2009-04-17: Code Generation with LLVM, Part 1: Basics
Tags: fridayqna llvm
Friday Q&A 2009-04-24: Code Generation with LLVM, Part 2: Fast Objective-C Forwarding
by Mike Ash  

It's Friday again, and that means another Friday Q&A. As promised, this week's edition will pick up where last week's left off. Last week I discussed the basics of generating code at runtime using LLVM. This week I'm going to build on that base and show how to use LLVM to perform fast forwarding in Objective-C.

If you aren't familiar with forwarding, then you'll want to read over my post from a few weeks ago that talks about it. Quickie version: forwarding lets you capture a method invocation and then bend it to your will.

Forwarding is really cool and powerful. Trouble is that it's also slow. A forwarded message send is about a thousand times slower than a direct one.

This should come as no surprise. After all, you perform forwarding by implementing -(void)forwardInvocation:(NSInvocation *)invocation That's an object parameter, one which has to be freshly created. The arguments have to be parsed from the method signature, then marshalled and laoded into the invocation object. Then to make the call, the arguments have to be marshalled out of the invocation object and into the right places to make the call. All of this takes a significant amount of time.

Higher-Order Messaging
My LLVM demonstration will involve implementing higher-order messaging, so you'd better know what that is. Cocoadev.com has a thorough explanation. The short version is that it's a technique for nested messaging which uses the outer message as an argument to the inner one. Consider this code:

   NSArray *result = [[array map] stringByAppendingString:@"suffix"];
What this code will do is iterate through the array, invoke stringByAppendingString:@"suffix" on every element, and return a new array containing the results. The map call is the higher-order message, and stringByAppendingString:@"suffix" serves as its argument. This is pretty neat stuff and is an interesting demonstration of the power of Objective-C.

How does it work? It's actually quite straightforward. map is defined in a category on NSArray and returns an instance of an NSProxy subclass. That proxy then implemets -forwardInvocation: to do the work of iterating and returning the new array. Here's the full source code for my minimal proxy that implements this:

    @interface ArrayMapProxyNormal : NSProxy
        NSArray *_array;
    - (id)initWithArray:(NSArray *)array;
    @implementation ArrayMapProxyNormal
    - (id)initWithArray:(NSArray *)array
        _array = array;
        return self;
    - (NSMethodSignature *)methodSignatureForSelector:(SEL)sel
        return [[_array lastObject] methodSignatureForSelector:sel];
    - (void)forwardInvocation:(NSInvocation *)inv
        NSMutableArray *newArray = [NSMutableArray array];
        for(id obj in _array)
            id retval;
            [inv invokeWithTarget:obj];
            [inv getReturnValue:&retval;];
            [newArray addObject:retval];
        [inv setReturnValue:&newArray;];
"Normal" here in contrast to the fancy LLVM solution that's coming up. For completeness, here's the mapNormal method on NSArray:
    - (id)mapNormal
        return [[[ArrayMapProxyNormal alloc] initWithArray:self] autorelease];
Not too much to it.

But, as mentioned, forwarding is slow. How can we make it faster?

Dynamic Methods
This technique gets kind of slow because it has to go through the forwarding path, which as mentioned, is very slow by itself. NSInvocation is expensive to build and expensive to invoke.

For the stringByAppendingString: example, we could special case that and speed it up by implementing it directly:

    - (id)stringByAppendingString:(NSString *)string
        NSMutableArary *newArray = [NSMutableArary array];
        for(id obj in _array)
            [newArray addObject:[obj stringByAppendingString:string]];
        return newArray;
That gets rid of the forwarding and invocation overhead. Trouble is, of course, that we'd have to anticipate and reimplement every possible method in advance. That's just not practical.

LLVM to the rescue! Using LLVM we can implement nothing, and see what gets used at runtime. The forwarding mechanism will get the first message. The proxy can then generate the appropriate method dynamically, add it to the class, and "forward" the invocation to itself. Subsequent messages will go straight through. This is what the forwardImplementation: implementation looks like from the LLVM proxy:

    - (void)forwardInvocation:(NSInvocation *)inv
        SEL sel = [inv selector];
        id obj = [_array lastObject];
        Method method = class_getInstanceMethod(object_getClass(obj), sel);
        const char *types = method_getTypeEncoding(method);
        NSMethodSignature *sig = [NSMethodSignature signatureWithObjCTypes:types];
        NSParameterAssert([sig methodReturnType][0] == '@');
        class_addMethod([self class],
                        [[self class] _trampolineMethodForSignature:sig selector:sel],
        [inv invoke];
Mostly straightforward stuff there. We get the metadata for the method from an object in the array, and then add a new method to our class. At the end we re-invoke the invocation, which causes it to go back to self and hit the newly-added method. The one tricky bit is the _trampolineMethodForSignature:selector: call. And that is a very tricky bit indeed!

Building the Code
If you'd like to see the entire program at once instead of bit by bit, you can get it here.

In order to simplify the LLVM-generated method, I'm going to push most of the iteration into Objective-C. Using fast enumeration would make things go even faster, but I'm not up to building that in LLVM intermediate code.

As such, the generated method will do the equivalent of this:

    - (id)trampoline
        NSMutableArray *array = [NSMutableArray array];
        id obj;
        while((obj = [self _nextObject]))
            [array addObject:[obj trampoline]];
        return array;
Except that the generated method will take and pass parameters depending on what we tell it to use. By using this template, the _nextObject method can be written in Objective-C, simplifying the job.

There's a lot of support structure that's needed before we can actually start building methods. First, we need to create an LLVM module and execution engine:

    static ExecutionEngine *ArrayMapProxyLLVMEngine;
    // requires explicit namespace due to conflict with objc header Module type
    static llvm::Module *ArrayMapProxyLLVMModule;
    + (void)initialize
        ArrayMapProxyLLVMModule = new llvm::Module("ArrayMapProxyLLVMDynamic");
        ArrayMapProxyLLVMEngine = ExecutionEngine::create(ArrayMapProxyLLVMModule);
We'll also define a method for printing the module, handy for debugging:
    + (void)printModule
        PassManager PM;
        ModulePass *pmp = createPrintModulePass(&outs;());
Next, I define a bunch of convenience functions for creating LLVM types corresponding to int, char, and various pointer types. For id and SEL I cheated a bit and defined them as char *. Since they're never dereferenced it doesn't really matter.
    static const IntegerType *intType(void)
        return IntegerType::get(sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT);
    static const IntegerType *charType(void)
        return IntegerType::get(CHAR_BIT);
    static const IntegerType *intptrType(void)
        return IntegerType::get(sizeof(void *) * CHAR_BIT);
    static const PointerType *idType(void)
        return PointerType::getUnqual(charType());
    static const PointerType *selType(void)
        return PointerType::getUnqual(charType());
Another important piece of infrastructure is code to go from an Objective-C type string to an LLVM type. We get the method argument types as C strings that conform to the @encode directive, but LLVM obviously expects values of its own Type class. This function maps from the one to the other:
    static const Type *LLVMTypeForObjCType(const char *type)
    #define IF_ISTYPE(t) if(strcmp(@encode(t), type) == 0)
    #define INT_TYPE(t) IF_ISTYPE(t) return IntegerType::get(sizeof(t) * CHAR_BIT)
    #define PTR_TYPE(t) IF_ISTYPE(t) return PointerType::getUnqual(charType())
        INT_TYPE(long long);
        INT_TYPE(unsigned char);
        INT_TYPE(unsigned short);
        INT_TYPE(unsigned int);
        INT_TYPE(unsigned long);
        INT_TYPE(unsigned long long);
        IF_ISTYPE(float) return Type::FloatTy;
        IF_ISTYPE(double) return Type::DoubleTy;
        IF_ISTYPE(void) return Type::VoidTy;
        PTR_TYPE(char *);
        if(type[0] == '^') return PointerType::getUnqual(charType());
        return NULL;
You'll note that there is absolutely no handling of any struct types. That was simply too involved and I didn't bother trying to implement it. It certainly could be done, but it would require considerably greater sophistication.

I need to refer to selectors and classes within the generated function, so here are convenience functions that take a SEL or a Class and generate an LLVM constant with that value:

    static Value *PtrValue(void *ptr, IRBuilder<> &builder, const Type *type, const char *name)
        Value *intv = ConstantInt::get(intptrType(), (int64_t)ptr, 0);
        return builder.CreateIntToPtr(intv, type, name);
    static Value *SELValue(SEL sel, IRBuilder<> &builder)
        return PtrValue(sel, builder, selType(), sel_getName(sel));
    static Value *ClassValue(Class c, IRBuilder<> &builder)
        return PtrValue(c, builder, idType(), class_getName(c));
This would never fly in a "real" code generator, because those pointers aren't guaranteed to remain fixed from one run to the next. But even though we're ultimately generating real machine code, we're still operating at runtime. Since those values can't change during the lifetime of the process there's no harm in embedding those values right into the code.

One more convenience function, this one for getting an LLVM Function * corresponding to objc_msgSend. This is actually pretty simple. By creating a function with that name, LLVM will automatically look it up as a C function within the process if no function with that name exists in the LLVM module. All we have to do is declare its parameter and return types correctly, and LLVM will call out to it.

    static Function *ObjcMsgSendFunction(void)
        static Function *f;
            std::vector<const Type *> msgSendArgTypes;
            FunctionType *msgSendType = FunctionType::get(idType(), msgSendArgTypes, true);
            f = Function::Create(msgSendType,
        return f;
That's all the infrastructure needed, now let's actually build the method.

Building the Method
So again, the generated method is supposed to look like this:

    - (id)trampoline
        NSMutableArray *array = [NSMutableArray array];
        id obj;
        while((obj = [self _nextObject]))
            [array addObject:[obj trampoline]];
        return array;
Except that arguments will be added as needed to fit the method signature of the target. And of course we all know that this really is a function that looks like this:
    id Trampoline(id self, SEL _cmd, ...)
        NSMutableArray *array = [NSMutableArray array];
        id obj;
        while((obj = [self _nextObject]))
            [array addObject:objc_msgSend(obj, _cmd, ...)];
        return array;
With the ... replaced by the arguments in question. With our target in mind, let's code.

We'll need method which generates the LLVM Function * for this function:

    + (Function *)_trampolineFunctionForSignature:(NSMethodSignature *)sig selector:(SEL)sel
The first thing this method does is build a vector of argument types, using the helper function I showed earlier to translate the NSMethodSignature into LLVM types:
        std::vector<const Type *> methodArgTypes;
        for(unsigned i = 0; i < [sig numberOfArguments]; i++)
            methodArgTypes.push_back(LLVMTypeForObjCType([sig getArgumentTypeAtIndex:i]));
Then we'll create the Function object and extract the arguments, just like last week:
        const Type *methodReturnType = LLVMTypeForObjCType([sig methodReturnType]);
        FunctionType *trampolineType = FunctionType::get(methodReturnType, methodArgTypes, false);
        Function *trampoline = (Function *)ArrayMapProxyLLVMModule->getOrInsertFunction(
            [NSStringFromSelector(sel) UTF8String],
        // get the 'self' and '_cmd' args as values, and name them
        // the rest we don't care about except to pass them along
        Function::arg_iterator args = trampoline->arg_begin();
        Value *selfarg = args++;
        Value *_cmdarg = args++;
The next thing to do is to set up the BasicBlock objects that this function will contain. That means breaking down the model C code into something a little more low level. Essentially, the function should look like this:
     set up selectors
     array = [NSMutableArray array];
     go to loopstart
     obj = [self _nextObject]
     if obj == nil then go to return
     else go to loopbody
     result = [obj trampoline]
     [array addObject:result];
     goto loopstart
     return array
Thus we can see that we'll need four basic blocks:
        BasicBlock *entry = BasicBlock::Create("entry", trampoline);
        BasicBlock *loopstart = BasicBlock::Create("loopstart", trampoline);
        BasicBlock *loopbody = BasicBlock::Create("loopbody", trampoline);
        BasicBlock *ret = BasicBlock::Create("return", trampoline);
We'll also take the opportunity to do some more setup here. We need the Function object for objc_msgSend since we'll be doing several of those, and we'll also get the selectors for messaging set up:
        Function *msgsend = ObjcMsgSendFunction();
        IRBuilder<> builder(entry);
        Value *arraySEL = SELValue(@selector(array), builder);
        Value *addObjectSEL = SELValue(@selector(addObject:), builder);
        Value *nextObjectSEL = SELValue(@selector(_nextObject), builder);
Now we can actually start making calls. We already know how to call functions from last week. We know how an Objective-C message translates into a C function call. We have a helper function to push an Objective-C Class pointer into LLVM code. All the pieces are therefore set to make the call to [NSMutableArray array]:
        Value *nsmutablearray = ClassValue([NSMutableArray class], builder);
        Value *array = builder.CreateCall2(msgsend, nsmutablearray, arraySEL, "array");
Easier than I made it sound, huh? Last step, unconditionally branch to the loopstart block:
Next, fill in loopstart. This is just a message send and then an if statement, nothing we don't already know how to do. The one tricky thing here is casting the pointer to an integer before comparing it with zero. There may be a better way to do this, but this way works....
        Value *nextObject = builder.CreateCall2(msgsend, selfarg, nextObjectSEL, "nextObject");
        Value *nextObjectInt = builder.CreatePtrToInt(nextObject, intptrType(), "nextObjectInt");
        Constant *zero = ConstantInt::get(intType(), 0, 1);
        Value *nextObjectIsNil = builder.CreateICmpEQ(nextObjectInt, zero, "nextObjectIsNil");
        builder.CreateCondBr(nextObjectIsNil, ret, loopbody);
Next, loopbody. Everything is straightforward here. The only tricky bit is dynamically generating the arguments for the trampoline call. This isn't particularly hard: we just copy the original arguments vector, but put nextObject in place of self. After that, a standard call to objc_msgSend, then a branch back to loopstart:
        Function::arg_iterator methodArgs = trampoline->arg_begin();
        std::vector<Value *> msgsendArgs;
        msgsendArgs.push_back(nextObject); methodArgs++;
        while(methodArgs != trampoline->arg_end())
        Value *result = builder.CreateCall(msgsend,
        builder.CreateCall3(msgsend, array, addObjectSEL, result);
That's pretty much the whole function. Only the return block is left, and all that has to do is return the array we've built:
Then just return the Function:
        return trampoline;
In addition to this, I'm also going to introduce something else new: optimization. Turns out that running optimizations in LLVM is, like most of the rest, surprisingly easy. A FunctionPassManager object manages passes. Add some optimization passes, then run the pass manager on the function, and it's optimized:
    + (void)_optimizeFunction:(Function *)f
        static FunctionPassManager *fpm;
            ExistingModuleProvider *moduleProvider = new ExistingModuleProvider(ArrayMapProxyLLVMModule);
            fpm = new FunctionPassManager(moduleProvider);
            fpm->add(new TargetData(*ArrayMapProxyLLVMEngine->getTargetData()));
Now all the pieces are in place for the really short +_trampolineMethodForSignature:selector:method:
    + (IMP)_trampolineMethodForSignature:(NSMethodSignature *)sig selector:(SEL)sel
        Function *f = [self _trampolineFunctionForSignature:sig selector:sel];
        [self _optimizeFunction:f];
        return (IMP)ArrayMapProxyLLVMEngine->getPointerToFunction(f);
And for completeness, the implementation of -_nextObject:
    - (id)_nextObject
        return (_index < _count
                ? (id)CFArrayGetValueAtIndex((CFArrayRef)_array, _index++)
                : nil);

Performance Testing
In order to see how fast the LLVM version went (and make sure that it actually worked!) I built a little test harness:

    @interface NSString (NOP)
    - (id)nop;
    - (id)nop:(int)x :(int)y :(int)z;
    @implementation NSString (Logging)
    - (id)nop { return self; }
    - (id)nop:(int)x :(int)y :(int)z
        NSParameterAssert(x == 1 && y == 2 && z == 3);
        return self;
    #define TIME(expr) do { \
        fprintf(stderr, "testing %s...", #expr); \
        /* let stuff happen a few times first for caching etc. */ \
        for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) expr; \
        NSTimeInterval totalTime = 0; \
        int iterations = 1; \
        while(totalTime < 5 && iterations < 2000000000) \
        { \
            iterations *= 5; \
            NSTimeInterval start = [NSDate timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate]; \
            NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; \
            for(int i = 0; i < iterations; i++) \
            { \
                expr; \
                if(!(i & 0xFF)) \
                { \
                    [pool release]; \
                    pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; \
                } \
            } \
            [pool release]; \
            NSTimeInterval end = [NSDate timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate]; \
            totalTime = end - start; \
        } \
        fprintf(stderr, " %fus/call\n", totalTime * 1000000.0 / iterations); \
    } while(0)
    int main(int argc, char **argv)
        NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [NSAutoreleasePool new];
        NSArray *reallySmallTimeTestArray = [NSArray arrayWithObject: @"0"];
        NSMutableArray *smallTimeTestArray = [NSMutableArray array];
        for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
            [smallTimeTestArray addObject:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%d", i]];
        NSMutableArray *largeTimeTestArray = [NSMutableArray array];
        for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
            [largeTimeTestArray addObject:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%d", i]];
        TIME([[reallySmallTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop]);
        TIME([[reallySmallTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop]);
        TIME([[reallySmallTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop:1 :2 :3]);
        TIME([[reallySmallTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop:1 :2 :3]);
        TIME([[smallTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop]);
        TIME([[smallTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop]);
        TIME([[smallTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop:1 :2 :3]);
        TIME([[smallTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop:1 :2 :3]);
        TIME([[largeTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop]);
        TIME([[largeTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop]);
        TIME([[largeTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop:1 :2 :3]);
        TIME([[largeTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop:1 :2 :3]);
        [pool release];
        return 0;

So how did it do? Here are the results from my Mac Pro:

    testing [[reallySmallTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop]... 1.450171us/call
    testing [[reallySmallTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop]... 8.171945us/call
    testing [[reallySmallTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop:1 :2 :3]... 1.496475us/call
    testing [[reallySmallTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop:1 :2 :3]... 9.091927us/call
    testing [[smallTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop]... 3.219738us/call
    testing [[smallTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop]... 15.972872us/call
    testing [[smallTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop:1 :2 :3]... 3.471767us/call
    testing [[smallTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop:1 :2 :3]... 17.267069us/call
    testing [[largeTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop]... 2263.705921us/call
    testing [[largeTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop]... 8524.912024us/call
    testing [[largeTimeTestArray mapLLVM] nop:1 :2 :3]... 2592.695684us/call
    testing [[largeTimeTestArray mapNormal] nop:1 :2 :3]... 8722.084808us/call
In short, it ranges from about 6 times faster for the one-element array case to a bit over 3 times faster for really long arrays. The difference is not surprising: much of the cost of standard forwarding is in building the invocation object, something that only happens once for the entire array. For long arrays, that cost is amortized into nonexistence, and we only pay the cost of invoking the NSInvocation, which is expensive but not as much.

Both techniques also pay a cost for allocating a proxy, allocating an array, and filling that array. While this hurts both equally, it reduces the relative advantage of the LLVM solution.

Finally, the forwarding solution has the advantage of using fast enumeration. This is unimportant for the small array but hurts for the big one. Redoing the LLVM code to use fast enumeration is entirely doable, of course, but would make the code more complicated.

It's also interesting to watch how the argument marshalling cost hits traditional forwarding with the really short array. An method with 3 arguments takes over 10% longer to map onto a 1-element array than a method with no arguments. Meanwhile LLVM map pays only about 3% for the extra arguments, since they're essentially hardcoded.

Conclusion: up to a 6x speedup, pretty cool!

Limitations and Improvements
This LLVM forwarding stuff is neat, but it could be better. Here are some areas where it could use work, if you feel like tinkering:

  1. Fast enumeration: I've probably mentioned this about sixteen times already, but it would definitely help with speed.
  2. Caching functions: Right now, the implementation generates a new function for every selector. This is wasteful, because many selectors will have the same signature, and can reuse the same function. A cache that allows reusing functions for different selectors with the same method signature would cut down on overhead.
  3. Zero-size arrays: This implementation simply explodes on empty arrays if the selector has never been seen before, because there's no object to get a method signature from to generate the function, but map shouldn't break just because it's used on an empty array.
  4. Struct support: This one is a little scary, but writing some code that can properly generate an LLVM struct definition from an Objective-C type string would be nifty.

That wraps up my two week series on runtime code generation with LLVM. In the first week I showed how to get basic code generation up and running with LLVM, then this week you saw how to take that and actually make it do something useful within an Objective-C program.

LLVM is a tremendously cool project and this kind of runtime code generation is extremely powerful. This dynamic fast forwarding implementation barely scratches the surface of the kinds of interesting things you can do.

Questions? Comments? Dares? Post them all below.

Don't forget that Friday Q&A is driven by your suggestions. Do you have a topic you'd like to see discussed here? If so, e-mail, tweet, or post it in the comments. (And be sure to tell me explicitly if you want to remain anonymous.)

Did you enjoy this article? I'm selling whole books full of them! Volumes II and III are now out! They're available as ePub, PDF, print, and on iBooks and Kindle. Click here for more information.


The LLVM approach is elegant and powerful, but I feel that it's worth noting that the particular problem you were solving here could done with the rather this rather easier code:

NSMutableArray *result = [NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:[array count]];

for (NSString *str in array)
    [result addObject:[str stringByAppendingString:@"suffix"]];

This code is less "Wow, look at the cool things I can do with Objective-C!"-ish, but it's simple, it works, and it doesn't incur the overhead of message forwarding. You could even generalize it with something like this:

@implementation NSArray (PerformSelector)
- (NSArray *)arrayByApplyingSelectorToObjects:(SEL)selector withObject:(id)argOrNil
    NSMutableArray *result = [NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:[self count]];

    for (id obj in self)
        if (argOrNil)
            [result addObject:[obj performSelector:selector withObject:argOrNil]];
            [result addObject:[obj performSelector:selector]];
    return result; // Cast from mutable array to nonmutable array

This doesn't have the flexibility implied by using full-fledged message forwarding, but it'll work for a lot of cases.
I really don't see how your code is easier than this:

NSArray *newArray = [[array map] stringByAppendingString:@"suffix"];

One line versus three. If you're counting the support code to implement map, well, don't. You don't count the support code to implement arrayWithCapacity: in your version....

As for your other one, that's nice and all, but falls apart the moment you want more parameters, or a parameter of a different type, which is most of the time.

Looking further, a more sophisticated HOM implementation can do something like this:

NSArray *newArray = [[prefixes map] stringByAppendingString:[suffixes each]];

To provide multi-array iteration.

Of course blocks will pretty much put HOM to rest for most people who are aware of it in the first place, but the whole point of this example was to show how you could use LLVM, not to show how you could use HOM.
Thanks for taking the time to put together this post. There are a couple of things I'm not comfortable with however.

It seems unfortunate that you can only get a 6x speedup with the LLVM implementation when you say that forwardInvocation: is "about a thousand times slower" than direct method invocation. I wonder if there's a better approach than invoking the compiler to create a method on an arbitrary class. Dynamic translation and inline caching is probably the "right" approach, although this requires runtime support (there are some interesting comments about an approach to doing this with LLVM here http://www.mirandabanda.org/cogblog/2008/06/06/cog/#comment-17).

The second issue pertains to typing. Both the normal and the LLVM implementations obtain the method signature from the last object in the array. Setting aside the case of an empty array, assuming that the binding for the last object applies to every other object is not safe unless there is some way to ensure the array is homogeneous.

Still, it's great to see these sorts of features being discussed for Objective-C. I was surprised to to come across some results indicating that Smalltalk message dispatching is still faster than the approach used in Objective-C (see the comment thread on this post http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/?p=22). Obviously that's more than made up for by the ability to include as much "raw" C as you need, but it suggests that a good runtime can be used to improve performance as well as to provide dynamic access to type information.

[I started building an equivalent test harness in Smalltalk but none of the implementations I am familiar with have a good quality microsecond timer. Eliot Miranda has some advice on how to do that so I might be able to cobble something together. I'll let you know how that goes :-)]

I suspect that the best opportunities for performance gains for dynamic Objective-C code will come from a smarter runtime than from invoking the compiler in this way. Nonetheless, it's useful to have such a realistic and detailed example about using LLVM with Objective-C.
The difference between the 6x speedup and the factor of 1000 comes about because of all the other work that's going on. The thousand times slower comes from doing forwardInvocation: and nothing else. Here, the program creates two objects (the proxy and the array) and then does some more work on them.

As for typing, this is just an inherent problem with Objective-C. Objective-C doesn't really tolerate having multiple methods in an application with the same selector but different signatures. It'll survive if you keep them well separated, but if you load them into an array and try to do something with them, you'll fall down. Even a standard for loop will break here. In practice, this problem does not occur very frequently. The array does not need to be homogenous, it just needs to have every object respond to that selector and use the same signature. In practice, the former will imply the latter.

For what it does, Objective-C messaging is basically as fast as it can possibly be. At 13 CPU cycles on i386 there's little to shave further. Smalltalk can go faster in some cases because it's actually doing something completely different. Namely, it's running a JIT compiler on the code at runtime, identifying places where dynamic dispatch can be eliminated due to proving what type of objects will be there, and doing a direct jump to the method in question or even inlining the implementation. That is, in fact, exactly the sort of "invoking the compiler" that you say you don't think are where performance gains lie.

One last note: since both comments so far seem to have missed this, it bears repeating. This example is not meant to be practical. This post is "how to integrate LLVM-generated code with your real code", not "how to make your Objective-C go faster". Faster is not the goal of this code, illustration is. That it's also several times faster than the simple implementation is a nice bonus, but it's not the point.
I think there's a difference between the dynamic method lookup done by the standard for loop and binding every object in an array to

[[_array lastObject] methodSignatureForSelector:sel];

if I have [NSArray arrayWithObjects:dog, cat, nil] and invoke @selector(bark) on each object, will the cat's forwardInvocation: method will be called in both the LLVM and the normal case? (assuming dog understands SEL(bark) but cat doesn't)
It is true that there's a difference between lookup done by the standard for loop and the one done by the HOM implementation. But neither one is correct for a loop that contains distinct method signatures for the selector in question. Consider this code:

for(id obj in array) [obj foo:bar];

When the compiler generates the code for [obj foo:bar], it needs to know the method signature at compile time in order to generate the correct code. (If foo: returns a struct, it needs to generate a call to objc_msgSend_stret, if foo: takes a float, it needs to pass bar as a float, etc. In order to do this, is just looks at whatever declaration for a foo: method is in scope. If none is in scope, it assumes vararg calling conventions. If more than one is in scope, it picks one at random.

While different from using the last object's method signature, it works no better.

As for your second question, sure, both cases use bog-standard ObjC messaging to talk to the contents of the array and therefore do the exact same thing in terms of invoking forwarding methods.
Very nice! Does it get much faster if you implement the llvm voodoo in resolveInstanceMethod: instead of forwardInvocation:?
Thanks Mr. Ash! I've been looking for just this for some time.
The LLVM voodoo can't go in resolveInstanceMethod: because you can't get the true method signature there, as it's a class method. (My original implementation used that, and cheated by stashing the "current proxy" in a global variable, but that's just plain ugly.) However it shouldn't matter speed-wise because forwardInvocation: only happens once. After the initial setup, method dispatch goes straight to the newly generated function and never passes through forwardInvocation: again. The setup cost is already huge due to building and compiling this dynamically-created function, so a bit of extra work doing forwardInvocation: isn't going to matter.
nice post -- any perf metrics on the time needed to dynamically compile the code? what about memory foot print? what kind of optimizations are being performed during code gen?
Wow, this is a huge post. Even if you had the code written, it must have taken a while to put together.

Thanks for taking the time!
I didn't bother to look into the amount of overhead, although it's definitely an interesting question. It seems to be pretty fast. In testing I dropped the timer to half a second instead of five seconds, and I couldn't see any startup delay with that. Whether that means it's 100ms or 100us, I don't know. If you decide to test it, please post your results!

As for the optimizations, it was pretty much just copy/paste from the tutorials for that section. Your best bet would be to read the LLVM documentation for the various stuff being passed to the FunctionPassManager.
Hi Mike,

thanks for this two-part series on how to use LLVM. Although it seems most of the posters have misunderstood the purpose of the example, I'd like to encourage you to do some more "LLVM how-to" in the future.

In particular, it would be interesting to see how the LLVM API's C-wrapper is used to call LLVM from C. Every Objective-C developer knows C of course, but not necessarily C++.
I searched around and found almost no information about the LLVM C API. What I did find indicated that it was incomplete, although that information was old.

In any case, I figure that if you don't know C++ and you want to do this kind of thing, you probably ought to just learn it. LLVM is not a beginners' library, and C++, while an ugly and horrible language in so many ways, is also an essential part of an advanced developer's toolkit.
Hi Mike,
Thnx for the wonderful post. Would you also do a tutorial about fast enumeration using LLVM code generation technique and also suggest some more use of it in objective C. That would be really great.. :)
Hi, I find reading this article a joy. It is extremely helpful and interesting and very much looking forward to reading more of your work..

Comments RSS feed for this page

Add your thoughts, post a comment:

Spam and off-topic posts will be deleted without notice. Culprits may be publicly humiliated at my sole discretion.

Web site:
Formatting: <i> <b> <blockquote> <code>. URLs are automatically hyperlinked.
Code syntax highlighting thanks to Pygments.
Hosted at DigitalOcean.