## Monday, July 24, 2017

### Phoronix SciMark benchmarking results

Phoronix recently published an article “Ryzen Compiler Performance: Clang 4/5 vs. GCC 6/7/8 Benchmarks”, and there are many results in that article that surprises me...

One such is the result for SciMark that shows that GCC generates much slower code than LLVM – there is a big difference in several tests, and the composite score is 25% lower. I do not have any Ryzen CPU to test on, but my testing on Broadwell shows very little difference between GCC and LLVM when SciMark is compiled with -O3 -march=x86-64 as in the article, and the Ryzen microarchitecture should not introduce that big difference. And the reported numbers seem low...

The Phoronix testing also shows strange performance variations between different GCC versions that I don’t see in my testing – I see a performance increase for each newer version of the compiler.

The published test results are made running scripts available at OpenBenchmarking.org,  and looking at the build script for SciMark shows that it is built as
cc $CFLAGS -o scimark2 -O *.c -lm  Note the -O – this overrides the optimization level set by $CFLAGS and explains at least some of the discrepancies in the test results.1 GCC maps -O to the -O1 optimization level that is meant to be a good choice to use while developing – it optimizes the code, but focuses as much on fast compilation time and good debug information as on producing fast code. LLVM maps -O to -O2 that is a “real” optimization level that prioritizes performance, so it is not surprising that LLVM produces faster code in this case.

So the benchmarking result does not show what is intended, and both compilers can do better than what the test results show...

1. I get similar results as the article when I use -O, but my result for FFT is very different...

## Thursday, July 20, 2017

### A load/store performance corner case

I have recently seen a number of “is X faster than Y?” discussions where micro benchmarks are used to determine the truth. But performance measuring is hard and may depend on seemingly irrelevant details...

Consider for example this code calculating a histogram
int histogram[256];

void calculate_histogram(unsigned char *p, int len)
{
memset(histogram, 0, sizeof(histogram));
for (int i = 0; i < len; i++)
histogram[p[i]]++;
}

The performance “should not” depend on the distribution of the values in the buffer p, but running this on a buffer with all bytes set to 0 and one buffer with random values gives me the result (using the Google benchmark library and this code)
Benchmark                Time           CPU Iterations
------------------------------------------------------
BM_cleared/4096       7226 ns       7226 ns      96737
BM_random/4096        2049 ns       2049 ns     343001

That is, running on random data is 3.5x faster compared to running on all-zero data! The reason for this is that loads and stores are slow, and the CPU tries to improve performance by executing later instructions out of order. But it cannot proceed with a load before the previous store to that address has been done,1 which slows down progress when all loop iterations read and write the same memory address histogram[0] .

This is usually not much of a problem for normal programs as they have more instructions that can be executed out of order, but it is easy to trigger this kind of CPU corner cases when trying to measure the performance of small code fragments, which results in the benchmark measuring something else than intended. Do not trust benchmark results unless you can explain the performance and know how it applies to your use case...

1. The CPU does “store to load forwarding” that saves cycles by enabling the load to obtain the data directly from the store operation instead of through memory, but it still comes with a cost of a few cycles.

## Tuesday, July 4, 2017

### Strict aliasing in C90 vs. C99 – and how to read the C standard

I often see claims that the strict aliasing rules were introduced in C99, but that is not true – the relevant part of the standard is essentially the same for C90 and C99. Some compilers used the strict aliasing rules for optimization well before 1999 as was noted in this 1998 post to the GCC mailing list (that argues that enabling strict aliasing will not cause many problems as most software already has fixed their strict aliasing bugs to work with those other compilers...)

### C99 – 6.5 Expressions

The C standard does not talk about “strict aliasing rules”, but they follow from the text in “6.5 Expressions”:
An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue expression that has one of the following types:73
• a type compatible with the effective type of the object,
• a qualified version of a type compatible with the effective type of the object,
• a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to the effective type of the object,
• a a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to a qualified version of the effective type of the object,
• an aggregate or union type that includes one of the aforementioned types among its members (including, recursively, a member of a subaggregate or contained union), or
• a character type.

73 The intent of this list is to specify those circumstances in which an object may or may not be aliased.
Note the footnote that says that the intention of these rules is to let the compiler determine that objects are not aliased (and thus be able to optimize more aggressively).

### C90 – 6.3 Expressions

The corresponding text in C90 is located in “6.3 Expressions”:
An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue that has one of the following types:36
• the declared type of the object,
• a qualified version of the declared type of the object,
• a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to the declared type of the object,
• a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to a qualified version of the declared type of the object,
• an aggregate or union type that includes one of the aforementioned types among its members (including, recursively, a member of a subaggregate or contained union), or
• a character type.

36 The intent of this list is to specify those circumstances in which an object may or may not be aliased.
It is similar to the text in C99, and it even has the footnote that says it is meant to be used to determine if an object may be aliased or not, so C90 allows optimizations using the strict aliasing rules.

But standard have bugs, and those can be patched by publishing technical corrigenda, so it is not enough to read the published standard to see what is/is not allowed. There are two technical corrigenda published for C90 (ISO/IEC 9899 TCOR1 and ISO/IEC 9899 TCOR2), and the TCOR1 updates the two first bullet points. The corrected version of the standard says
An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue that has one of the following types:36
• a type compatible with the declared type of the object,
• a qualified version of a type compatible with the declared type of the object,
• a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to the declared type of the object,
• a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to a qualified version of the declared type of the object,
• an aggregate or union type that includes one of the aforementioned types among its members (including, recursively, a member of a subaggregate or contained union), or
• a character type.

36 The intent of this list is to specify those circumstances in which an object may or may not be aliased.
The only difference compared to C99 is that it does not talk about effective type, which makes it unclear how malloc:ed memory is handled as it does not have a declared type. This is discussed in the defect report DR 28 that asks if it is allowed to optimize
void f(int *x, double *y) {
*x = 0;
*y = 3.14;
*x = *x + 2;
}

to
void f(int *x, double *y) {
*x = 0;
*y = 3.14;
*x = 2; /* *x known to be zero */
}

if x and y point to malloc:ed memory, and the committee answered (citing the bullet point list from 6.3)
We must take recourse to intent. The intent is clear from the above two citations and from Footnote 36 on page 38: The intent of this list is to specify those circumstances in which an object may or may not be aliased.
Therefore, this alias is not permitted and the optimization is allowed.
In summary, yes, the rules do apply to dynamically allocated objects.
That is, the allocated memory gets its declared type when written and the subsequent reads must be done following the rules in the bullet-point list, which is essentially the same as what C99 says.

### One difference between C90 and C99

There is one difference between the C90 and C99 strict aliasing rules in how unions are handled – C99 allows type-punning using code such as
union a_union {
int i;
float f;
};

int f() {
union a_union t;
t.f = 3.0;
return t.i;
}

while this is implementation-defined in C90 per 6.3.2.3
[...] if a member of a union object is accessed after a value has been stored in a different member of the object, the behavior is implementation-defined.

### Reading the standard

Language lawyering is a popular sport on the internet, but it is a strange game where often the only winning move is not to play. Take for example DR 258 where the committee is asked about a special case in macro-expansion that is unclear. The committee answers
The standard does not clearly specify what happens in this case, so portable programs should not use these sorts of constructs.
That is, unclear parts of the standard should be avoided – not tried to get language lawyered into saying what you want.

And the committee is pragmatic; DR 464 is a case where the defect report asks to add an example for a construct involving the #line directive that some compilers get wrong, but the committee thought it was better to make it unspecified behavior
Investigation during the meeting revealed that several (in fact all that were tested) compilers did not seem to follow the interpretation of the standard as given in N1842, and that it would be best to acknowledge this as unspecified behavior.
So just because the standard says something does not mean that it is the specified behavior. One other fun example of this is DR 476 where the standard does not make sense with respect to the behavior of volatile:
All implementors represented on the committee were polled and all confirmed that indeed, the intent, not the standard, is implemented. In addition to the linux experience documented in the paper, at least two committee members described discussions with systems engineers where this difference between the standard vs the implementation was discussed because the systems engineers clearly depended on the implementation of actual intent. The sense was that this was simply a well known discrepency.

## Saturday, July 1, 2017

### Hard-coded hardware addresses in C/C++

I read a blog post “reinterpret_cast vs. constant expression” that discusses how to get rid of C-style casts for code such as
#define FOO ((struct S*)0xdff000)

But there is no need to have hard-coded addresses in the code – it is better to declare a normal structure
extern struct S hw_s;

and tell the linker to place it at address 0xdff000 using an assembly file containing the lines
.global hw_s
hw_s = 0xdff000

FOO can now be defined without a cast
#define FOO &hw_s

although it is probably better to use hw_s directly...

It is good to get rid of hard-coded addresses in C/C++ code even if you do not care about ugly casts. One reason is that the compiler cannot know which objects the hard-coded addresses point to, which restricts the data flow analysis. One other reason is that hard-coded addresses interact badly with instruction selection in the backend. This is especially true for code accessing hardware registers that expand to assignments of the form
*(volatile int *)(0xdff008) = 0;
*(volatile int *)(0xdff010) = 10;

The best way of generating the code depends on the CPU architecture, but it usually involves loading a base address into a register and storing using a “base + offset” addressing mode, so the compiler needs to split and re-combine the addresses (which is complicated as there are often restrictions on which offsets are valid, the cost of the base depends on the value, etc.). The ARM backend is good at this, but I have seen many cases where much slower and larger code than necessary is generated for more obscure architectures. For example, GCC 7.1 for RISC-V compiles
void foo(void)
{
*(volatile int *)(0xfffff00023400008) = 0;
*(volatile int *)(0xfffff00023400010) = 10;
}

to
foo:
lui a5,%hi(.LC0)
ld a5,%lo(.LC0)(a5)
li a4,10
sw zero,0(a5)
lui a5,%hi(.LC1)
ld a5,%lo(.LC1)(a5)
sw a4,0(a5)
ret
.LC0:
.dword -17591594647544
.LC1:
.dword -17591594647536

instead of the smaller and faster
foo:
lui a5,%hi(.LC0)
ld a5,%lo(.LC0)(a5)
li a4,10
sw zero,8(a5)
sw a4,16(a5)
ret
.LC0:
.dword -17591594647552

you get by writing through a normal structure.

## Monday, June 19, 2017

### A look at range-v3 code generation

I recently saw a Stack Overflow post that compared the speed of std::find_if on a vector vec
auto accumulated_length = 0L;
auto found = std::find_if(vec.begin(), vec.end(),
[&](auto const &val) {
accumulated_length += val;
});
auto const found_index = std::distance(vec.begin(), found);


and the equivalent code using the range-v3 library
auto const found_index = ranges::distance(vec
| ranges::view::transform(ranges::convert_to<long>{})
| ranges::view::partial_sum()
| ranges::view::take_while([=](auto const i) {
return !(to_find < i);
}));

Measuring the performance on an Intel Broadwell CPU using the Google benchmark library and this code compiled with the options
-O3 -march=native -std=c++14 -DNDEBUG
gives me the result
Benchmark                Time           CPU Iterations
------------------------------------------------------
BM_std/1024            311 ns        311 ns    2248354
BM_range/1024         2102 ns       2102 ns     332711

for gcc 7.1.0 and
BM_std/1024            317 ns        317 ns    2208547
BM_range/1024          809 ns        809 ns     864328

for clang 4.0.0. There are two obvious questions
• Why is range-v3 slower than the STL?
• Why is the difference so much bigger for GCC than for LLVM?

I also wanted to see if the STL added overhead, so I tried a simple C-style for-loop
long i, acc = 0;
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
acc += p[i];
if (to_find < acc)
break;
}
found_index = i;

This runs in 439 ns – 40% slower than the STL version! – which adds the question
• Why is the for-loop slower than the STL version?

### Why is the for-loop slower?

GCC is generating the obvious assembly for the for-loop
.L4:
movslq  (%r8,%rax,4), %rcx
cmpq    %rsi, %rdx
jg      .L7
.L3:
cmpq    %rdi, %rax
jl      .L4
.L7:
...

I had expected the compiler to generate similar code for std::find_if, and that is what happens if it is used with an input iterator, but libstdc++ has an overload for random-access iterators which partially unrolls the loop
template<typename _RandomAccessIterator, typename _Predicate>
_RandomAccessIterator
__find_if(_RandomAccessIterator __first, _RandomAccessIterator __last,
_Predicate __pred, random_access_iterator_tag)
{
typename iterator_traits<_RandomAccessIterator>::difference_type
__trip_count = (__last - __first) >> 2;

for (; __trip_count > 0; --__trip_count)
{
if (__pred(__first))
return __first;
++__first;

if (__pred(__first))
return __first;
++__first;

if (__pred(__first))
return __first;
++__first;

if (__pred(__first))
return __first;
++__first;
}

switch (__last - __first)
{
case 3:
if (__pred(__first))
return __first;
++__first;
case 2:
if (__pred(__first))
return __first;
++__first;
case 1:
if (__pred(__first))
return __first;
++__first;
case 0:
default:
return __last;
}
}

This partial unrolling gets rid of a large fraction of the comparisons and branches, which makes a big difference for this kind of micro-benchmark.

### Why does GCC generate slow code for range-v3?

The range-v3 code generated by GCC have a few objects placed on the stack which adds some (useless) memory operations. The reason they are not optimized has to do with how GCC are optimizing structures and the order the optimization passes are being run.

The GCC “Scalar Replacement of Aggregates” (SRA) optimization pass splits structures into their elements. That is,
struct S {
int a, b, c;
};

struct S s;

s.a = s.b = s.c = 0;
...

is transformed to the equivalent of
int a, b, c;

a = b = c = 0;
...

and the variables are then optimized and placed in registers in the same way as normal non-structure variables.

The compiler cannot split structures that have their address taken as it would then need to do expensive pointer tracking to find how each element is used, so such structures are kept on the stack. The GCC SRA pass is conservative and does not split a structure if any part of it has been captured by a pointer, such as
struct S s;

s.a = s.b = s.c = 0;
int *p = &s.a;
...

that could be split into
int a, b, c;

a = b = c = 0;
int *p = &a;
...

but that is not done by GCC.

It is usually not a problem that address-taking limits SRA as optimization passes such as constant propagation eliminates use of pointers when they are only used locally in a function, so code of the form
struct S s;

int *p = &s.a;
...
*p = 0;

is transformed to
struct S s;

...
s.a = 0;

which can then be optimized by SRA. But this requires that all paths to the use of p pass through the same initialization and that the compiler can see that they pass through the same initialization – we cannot easily eliminate the pointers for code such as
struct S s;
int *p;

if (cond)
p = &s.a;
...
if (cond)
*p = 0;

that need the compiler to track values to see that all executions of *p initializes p to &s.a.

And that is how the range-v3 code looks like after templates has been expanded and all functions inlined – the code does different initializations depending on if the range is empty or not and ends up with code segments of the form
if (begin != end) {
// Initialize some variables
}

...

if (begin != end) {
// Use the variables
}

I have a hard time trying to follow exactly what range-v3 is trying to do – the code expands to more than 700 functions, so I have only looked at the compiler’s IR after inlining and I do not know exactly how it look in the C++ source code – but the result is that the compiler fails to propagate some addresses due to this issue and three objects (one struct take_while_view and two struct basic_iterator) are still placed on the stack when the last SRA pass has been run.

GCC do eventually manage to simplify the code enough that SRA could eliminate all structures, but that is later in the optimization pipeline, after the last SRA pass has been run. I tested to add an extra late SRA pass – this eliminates the memory operations, and the function runs in 709 ns. Much better, but still only half the speed of the STL version.

### Why is range-v3 slower than the STL?

Both GCC and LLVM generate the range-v3 code to something of the form
static long foo(const int *begin, const int *end, long to_find)
{
long result = 0;
const int *p = begin;
if (begin != end) {
result = *begin;
while (1) {
if (p == end)
break;
if (to_find < result)
break;

p++;
if (p != end)
result += *p;
}
}
return p - begin;
}

that does one extra comparison in the loop body compared to the for-loop version. This kind of code is supposed to be simplified by the loop optimizers, but they are running relatively early in the optimization pipeline (partly so that later optimizations may take advantage of the improved loop structure, and partly as many optimizations makes life harder for the loop optimizer) so they are limited by the same issues mentioned in the previous section – that is, I assume the redundant comparison would be eliminated if the range-v3 library improved its handling of empty ranges etc.

## Sunday, June 4, 2017

### -fipa-pta

My previous blog post had a minimal description of -fipa-pta and I have received several questions about what it actually do. This blog post will try to give some more details...

### Points-to analysis

Many optimizations need to know if two operations may access the same memory address. For example, the if-statement in
i = 5;
*p = -1;
if (i < 0)
do_something();

can be optimized away if *p cannot modify i.

GCC tracks what the pointers may point to using the general ideas from the paper “Efficient Field-sensitive pointer analysis for C”. I will not describe the details – the first few pages of the paper do it better than I can do here – but the principle is that each pointer is represented by a set of locations it may point to, the compiler is generating set constraints representing each statement in the program, and then solving those constraints to get the actual set of locations the pointer may point to.

But this process is expensive, so GCC is normally doing this one function at a time and assumes that called functions may access any memory visible to them.

### -fipa-pta

The -fipa-pta optimization takes the bodies of the called functions into account when doing the analysis, so compiling
void __attribute__((noinline))
bar(int *x, int *y)
{
*x = *y;
}

int foo(void)
{
int a, b = 5;
bar(&a, &b);
return b + 10;
}

with -fipa-pta makes the compiler see that bar does not modify b, and the compiler optimizes foo by changing b+10 to 15
int foo(void)
{
int a, b = 5;
bar(&a, &b);
return 15;
}


A more relevant example is the “slow” code from the “Integer division is slow” blog post
std::random_device entropySource;
std::mt19937 randGenerator(entropySource());
std::uniform_int_distribution<int> theIntDist(0, 99);

for (int i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
volatile auto r = theIntDist(randGenerator);
}

Compiling this with -fipa-pta makes the compiler see that theIntDist is not modified within the loop, and the inlined code can thus be constant-folded in the same way as the “fast” version – with the result that it runs four times faster.

## Tuesday, May 30, 2017

### Interprocedural optimization in GCC

Compilers can do a better job optimizing a function if they can use knowledge of other functions. The obvious case is inlining, but there are many more cases. This post lists the interprocedural optimizations implemented in GCC 7.

Many of the optimizations are only relevant for large functions (small functions are inlined into the caller!) or for helping other optimization passes. This makes it hard to give relevant examples, so the examples in this post are just illustrating the principles.

### Parameter passing

Parameter passing for functions where GCC can see all callers (such as functions that are local to a translating unit, or when the whole program is compiled using link-time optimization) is optimized as
• Unused parameters are removed.
• Parameters passed  by reference may be changed to be passed by value. For example,
static int foo(int *m)
{
return *m + 1;
}

int bar(void)
{
int i = 1;
return foo(&i);
}

is changed to
static int foo(int m)
{
return m + 1;
}

int bar(void)
{
int i = 1;
return foo(i);
}

which makes it much easier for other optimization passes to reason about the variables.
• A structure may be split into its elements. For example,
struct bovid
{
float red;
int green;
void *blue;
};

static void ox(struct bovid *cow)
{
cow->red = cow->red + cow->green;
}

int main(void)
{
struct bovid cow;

cow.red = 7.4;
cow.green = 6;
cow.blue = &cow;

ox(&cow);

return 0;
}

is changed to
struct bovid
{
float red;
int green;
void *blue;
};

static void ox(float *t1, int t2)
{
*t1 = *t1 + t2;
}

int main(void)
{
struct bovid cow;

cow.red = 7.4;
cow.green = 6;
cow.blue = &cow;

ox(&cow.red, cow.green);

return 0;
}

These optimizations are enabled by -fipa-sra, which is enabled by default at -Os, -O2, and -O3.

### Constant propagation

Functions where all callers pass the same constant can be optimized by propagating the constant into the function. That is,
static int foo(int a, int b)
{
if (b > 0)
return a + b;
else
return a * b;
}

int bar(int m, int n)
{
return foo(m, 7) + foo(n, 7);
}

is optimized to
static int foo(int a)
{
return a + 7;
}

int bar(int m, int n)
{
return foo(m) + foo(n);
}


The constants can be propagated bitwise, which is useful for flag parameters. For example
static int foo(int a, int b)
{
if (b & 4)
return a & (b & 1);
else
return a & (b & 2);
}

int bar(int m, int n)
{
return foo(m, 9) | foo(n, 3);
}

is optimized to
static int foo(int a, int b)
{
return a & (b & 2);
}

int bar(int m, int n)
{
return foo(m, 9) | foo(n, 3);
}


The constants do not need to be the same in all function calls – GCC tracks ranges of possible values and optimize as appropriate, so
static int foo(int a, int b)
{
if (b > 0)
return a + b;
else
return a * b;
}

int bar(int m, int n)
{
return foo(m, 5) + foo(n, 7);
}

is optimized to
static int foo(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}

int bar(int m, int n)
{
return foo(m, 5) + foo(n, 7);
}

as both 5 and 7 are greater than 0.

These optimizations are enabled by -fipa-cp, -fipa-bit-cp, and -fipa-vrp, which are enabled by default at -Os, -O2, and -O3.

### Constant propagation – cloning

It is often the case that only a few of the function calls pass constants as parameters, or that the constants are conflicting so they cannot be propagated into the called function. GCC handles this by cloning the called function to let each conflicting call get its own version. For example,
static int foo(int a, int b)
{
if (b > 0)
return a + b;
else
return a * b;
}

int bar(int m, int n)
{
return foo(m, 5) + foo(m, n);
}

creates one clone of foo and optimizes it using the constant 5 for the parameter b
static int foo(int a, int b)
{
if (b > 0)
return a + b;
else
return a * b;
}

static int foo_clone(int a)
{
return a + 5;
}

int bar(int m, int n)
{
return foo_clone(m) + foo(m, n);
}


This optimization is enabled by -fipa-cp-clone, which is enabled by default at -O3.

### Devirtualization

Devirtualization (converting calls to virtual functions to direct calls – see Jan Hubička's blog series on how devirtualization works in GCC) is helped by propagating type information in roughly the same way as the constants are propagated, and is implemented by the constant propagation pass.

This is enabled by -fipa-cp and -fdevirtualize, which are enabled by default at -Os, -O2, and -O3.

### Caller-saved registers

Caller saved registers do not need to be saved if those registers are not used by the called function.

This optimization is enabled by -fipa-ra, which is enabled by default at -Os, -O2, and -O3.

### Identical code folding

The “identical code folding pass” merges identical functions. The functions do not need to be identical in the source code – the merging is done halfway through the optimization pipeline so it is enough that they have the same structure after simplification (and variable names etc. does not matter).

Functions that may be used outside the compilation unit cannot be completely merged as the C and C++ standards require that functions have unique addresses. GCC solves this by adding wrappers for the exported symbols, so that
#include <stdio.h>

void foo(char *s)
{
printf("Hello %s\n", s);
}

void bar(char *s)
{
printf("Hello %s\n", s);
}

is generated as
.LC0:
.string "Hello %s\n"

foo:
mov     rsi, rdi
xor     eax, eax
mov     edi, OFFSET FLAT:.LC0
jmp     printf

bar:
jmp     foo


This optimization is enabled by -fipa-icf, which is enabled by default at -Os, -O2, and -O3.

### Profile propagation

Many optimizations have different heuristics depending on how much the code is executed. The compiler estimates branch frequencies and propagates this information between functions so that, for example, a function only called from “cold” code segments is treated as a “cold” function.

This is enabled by -fipa-profile, which is enabled by default at -O and higher.

### Pure, const, and noexcept

GCC analyzes functions to determine if they access memory or may throw exceptions, propagates this information throughout the compilation unit, and annotates the functions with pure, const, and noexcept attributes when possible, which helps other optimizations.

This optimization is enabled by -fipa-pure-const, which is enabled by default at -O and higher.

### Global variables

It is in general hard to optimize usage of global variables, but it is easy to improve usage of global variables that cannot escape the compilation unit and that do not have the address taken. There are three optimizations done on such variables
• Removal of global variables that are never read.
• A global variable that is used in only one function may be changed to a local variable in that function.
• The compiler tracks which functions modifies the variables so that loads and stores may be moved over function calls that do not touch the variable. For example, the function bar in
static int g;

void foo(void)
{
// Code not touching g
}

int bar(void)
{
g += 1;
foo();
g += 2;
}

is optimized to
int bar(void)
{
foo();
g += 3;
}

These optimizations are enabled by -fipa-reference, which is enabled by default at -O and higher.

### Pointer analysis

GCC can do interprocedural pointer analysis, which is enabled by -fipa-pta. This optimization is not enabled by default at any optimization level as it can cause excessive memory and compile-time usage on large compilation units.