Introduction: Arduino IDE 1.6.x Compiler Optimisations = Faster Code
After downloading the latest Arduino IDE (1.6.1) I was rather disappointed that some of my sketches ran significantly slower than the same sketch compiled under IDE 1.0.6. This was particularly noticeable on one of my sketches that drove a TFT display.
The good news however was that the 1.6.1 IDE produced a sketch that was 20% smaller, this was great as I was beginning to run out of FLASH space on my UNO for different fonts.
To solve the mysteries of the compiled code sizes and speed differences I decided to investigate further. Ideally I wanted the speed back that the older IDE gave me, whilst still being able to save program FLASH space!
Step 1: Compilers
A search on the internet will tell you much more than I can about compilers, here is just a brief summary.
The Arduino sketches are written in a high level language, namely C++ or C but the micro-controller executes machine code instructions, thus the job of the compiler is to convert (viz translate) the human readable code into a sequence of instructions that the micro-controller can execute. Essentially the compiler converts one language to another.
When the compiler is called upon to create the executable code there are a number of options that can be invoked, in the case of the GCC compiler used by the Arduino IDE there are 5 speed/size optimisation options as detailed here. The different options cause the compiler to make more effort to optimise the executable code for size or speed.
The default optimisation used in the Arduino IDE is for size, this is option "-Os" in the command line. The reason the code sizes and speeds generated by the two Arduino IDE's is so different is because a much newer version of the GCC compiler is used in the latest IDE. Clearly this new version creates a significantly smaller executable but the penalty it appears is a significantly slower execution speed.
A few mild words of caution
It is worth noting that, in rare cases, changing the optimisation level can affect the way a program behaves when running. This is because optimisation tries to"rewrite" the software to make a "time" and "size" efficient executable. The probability of the software function being affected is dependent on how "aggressively" the compiler modifies the code.
The default optimisation level for the Arduino IDE (-Os) is already pretty aggressive so it is very unlikely that you will see new behaviour problems introduced if the optimisation level is changed.
Because the compiler follows a set of rules we sometimes need to include "compiler directives" within the software itself to avoid problems during the optimisation process, a classic problem is the failure to declare variables as "volatile" when they are used by a main program and an Interrupt routine... if you don't know what "volatile" means then Google "why is volatile needed".
Step 2: Size and Speed Differences
The sketch I used for testing was a graphics speed test.
Here are the results of tests for a sketch compiled for an Arduino Mega, similar results would be expected for an UNO:
IDE 1.0.6 :
- Compiled size: 26,620 bytes
- Execution time: 13.3 seconds
- Compiled size: 19,558 bytes
- Execution time: 17.8 seconds
These results showed why I noticed such a dramatic speed difference...
We can also see the 1.6.1 IDE produces a FLASH image 7062 bytes smaller, that is significant when you consider it could make the difference between getting it running on an UNO or needing an upgrade to a Mega.
Unfortunately the execution speed has dropped 34% which is not helpful. The question I wanted to answer was:
Can we have the best of both worlds, a fast execution time and a smaller sketch?
Step 3: Results of Changing the Compiler Optimisation
Bear in mind that I have just tested one sketch and different options may be better in some circumstances.
These are the results I obtained when using the IDE 1.6.1 and changing the compiler optimisation directive:
-Os (Arduino IDE default)
- Compiled size: 19,558 bytes
- Execution time: 17.8 seconds
-O0 (no optimisation at all!)
- Compiled size: 31,382 bytes
- Execution time: 44.7 seconds
- Compiled size: 20,428 bytes
- Execution time: 17.0 seconds
- Compiled size: 20,500 bytes
- Execution time: 12.7 seconds
- Compiled size: 25,550 bytes
- Execution time: 12.2 seconds
As I am using an Arduino Mega I am not particularly concerned about the FLASH size, so option -O3 gives a better speed (shorter run time) and the sketch is smaller than the IDE 1.0.6 gave me. However I have decided to set the 1.6.1 IDE to optimisation -O2 as that looks like a good compromise between better speed and smaller FLASH code.
The size and speed improvements obtained for your own sketches may well give better or worse results and a different compiler option may give better results.
Step 4: How to Change the Optimisation Level...
The compiler command lines are contained within a text file buried within the Arduino application image, it is necessary to burrow down through a few directory levels to find a text file called "platform.txt".
In a Windows environment you need to open the folder where the arduino.exe is and find the file in the folder path.
See step 6 of this Instructable if you are using the latest 1.6.x IDE, as the file path to platform.txt has changed!
If you are nervous about messing something up then make a copy of the file somewhere!
Open the platform.txt file in WordPad (Notepad will not work due to the way the file is structured). Turn off "Word wrap" so lines can be counted more easily.
Find this line, about 16 lines down from the top:
compiler.c.flags=-c -g -Os -w -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -MMD
Change the -Os to -O2 as below:
compiler.c.flags=-c -g -O2 -w -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -MMD
Next find a second line a little further down the file, about 23 lines from the top:
compiler.cpp.flags=-c -g -Os -w -fno-exceptions -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fno-threadsafe-statics -MMD
Again, change the -Os to -O2 as below:
compiler.cpp.flags=-c -g -O2 -w -fno-exceptions -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fno-threadsafe-statics -MMD
In practice it is just a case of changing the "s" to a "2". Note that is a letter "O" not a zero in the command line.
Now save the file, don't worry about any format warning. Next time it will open in Notepad OK!
Changing the compiler options will have no effect if you do it while you have the Arduino IDE open, you must close all the Arduino windows and open up the IDE again to get the change to be recognised.
I found my sketch ran a tiny weeny bit (a few microseconds!) faster with the first line changed to -O1 but the difference was far too small to notice when the sketch is running.
Step 5: Result!
Mission accomplished! Smaller code TICK, faster speed TICK, so it was a win-win for me!
Step 6: Arduino IDE 1.6.2 to 1.6.3 - Platform.txt Location
The latest 1.6.x IDE is now available on the Arduino website. The same methods can be used to change the compiler optimisation but the "platform.txt" file is in a different location.
If you open the Arduino IDE "File" menu, select "Preferences" then in the bottom on the window you will see the file path to help find it. On my Windows setup this is:
where XXXX is your user name.
There is already a platform.txt at that directory level but I see no way to change the compiler options in that one. You need to burrow down through a few more directory levels to find this platform.txt file:
Now open the file, edit the compiler option, and save as described in Step 4. On my copy of the txt file the lines to modify are 17 and 24.
Hopefully in future IDE versions the file will be in a similar location.
Annoyingly the new 1.6.x IDE version over-writes some files used by other older IDE versions that may be resident! So if you load a new IDE you will need to change the compiler options yet again.
Step 7: IDE 1.6.6 and 1.6.7
To quote McCoy from Star Trek "I know engineers, they love to change things". So the platform.txt file is back in the IDE folder for the latest versions (a good move)! For example:
I am not sure if it is because my software programming skills have improved or for some other unfathomable reason, but the speed gains from using the -O2 optimisation level instead of -Os seem somewhat lower these days at a few percent. So might be that the gains are very dependent on what the software is doing and may not be worth the effort. I suspect that I got lucky on some of my sketches and some tight loops were made significantly faster by -O2.
We have a be nice policy.
Please be positive and constructive.