Duke Nukem 3D code review
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:40 UTC
General Development "Since I left my job at Amazon I have spent a lot of time reading great source code. Having exhausted the insanely good idSoftware pool, the next thing to read was one of the greatest game of all time: Duke Nukem 3D and the engine powering it named 'Build'. It turned out to be a difficult experience: The engine delivered great value and ranked high in terms of speed, stability and memory consumption but my enthousiasm met a source code controversial in terms of organization, best practices and comments/documentation. This reading session taught me a lot about code legacy and what helps a software live long." Hail to the king, baby.
E-mail Print r 0   66 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ko7
Permalink for comment 553222
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Code Review
by phreck on Wed 20th Feb 2013 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Code Review"
phreck
Member since:
2009-08-13

"The processors have also become too complex:

- out of order execution


It's like: hey we (the processor manufacturer) have inserted a little data flow engine in your processor, this is sadly only for values in registers - memory stuff still is mostly in order. And the programmer say okay, that's nice, I guess I don't have to work as hard to make instructions start in parallel and instead optimize data flows. "

There's also a dependency analysis. Your expressions shouldn't be too interwired.

"
- parallel execution units


See above. "

Flatness. Don't nest too deep. In C++, I've seen a simple loop iterating over an std::vector compiled to really fine SSE code.


"
- branch prediction


Okay, care to explain how this could make any difference when coding? This is a mechanism that applies predictions from dynamic patters when executing code, not something that have to be coded. Current x86 processors doesn't even support hints. "

This goes hand in hand with above and with speculative execution. Generally, your code should be as predictable as possible, i.e. the sooner the branch-condition is known, the better.

There's also the defaults when the CPU discovers a branch for the first time: If the CPU by default assumes "branch taken", you should structure your code so that it is less expensive to enter the body of an if statement.

Then, especially in tight loops and branches within them, the branch-conditions shouldn't vary for each iteration, because the CPU has a branch target buffer.

"
- multiple cache levels


Unless you code Fortran I don't think you'll ever see your compiler optimize towards this. But yes multi-dimensional cache blocking/tiling is a pain in the ass and making it dynamically adapt to the platform cache hierarchy almost require runtime code generation.
Which your standard compiler wont do. "

Enter the world of cache oblivious algorithms.



No it simply requires knowledge of software-hardware interaction. Assembly language programmers are also better when optimizing e.g. C code as they know that under the abstraction it's still a Von Neumann machine.


It is not that simple actually. I've seen assembly level programmers who really know what they do, and they do it well, however, that usually was at the micro-optimization level, which doesn't scale to long-lived and/or big softwares.

I see more potential on the algorithmic level, e.g., mentioned already, cache oblivious algorithms, knowing the right algorithms, your domain, and even being able to decide at runtime which algorithm to use.




All in all I am not sure if you are evangelizing Assembly, C or compilers in your post.

Reply Parent Score: 1