As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Some years ago I was on a panel that was interviewing candidates for a relatively senior embedded C programmer position.
One of the standard questions that I asked was about optimisation techniques. I was quite surprised that some of the candidates didn't have answers.
So, in the interests of putting together a list for posterity - what techniques and constructs do you normally use when optimising C programs?
Answers to optimisation for speed and size both accepted.
First things first - don't optimise too early. It's not uncommon to spend time carefully optimising a chunk of code only to find that it wasn't the bottleneck that you thought it was going to be. Or, to put it another way "Before you make it fast, make it work"
Investigate whether there's any option for optimising the algorithm before optimising the code. It'll be easier to find an improvement in performance by optimising a poor algorithm than it is to optimise the code, only then to throw it away when you change the algorithm anyway.
And work out why you need to optimise in the first place. What are you trying to achieve? If you're trying, say, to improve the response time to some event work out if there is an opportunity to change the order of execution to minimise the time critical areas. For example when trying to improve the response to some external interrupt can you do any preparation in the dead time between events?
Once you've decided that you need to optimise the code, which bit do you optimise? Use a profiler. Focus your attention (first) on the areas that are used most often.
So what can you do about those areas?
minimise condition checking. Checking conditions (eg. terminating conditions for loops) is time that isn't being spent on actual processing. Condition checking can be minimised with techniques like loop-unrolling.
In some circumstances condition checking can also be eliminated by using function pointers. For example if you are implementing a state machine you may find that implementing the handlers for individual states as small functions (with a uniform prototype) and storing the "next state" by storing the function pointer of the next handler is more efficient than using a large switch statement with the handler code implemented in the individual case statements. YMMV.
minimise function calls. Function calls usually carry a burden of context saving (eg. writing local variables contained in registers to the stack, saving the stack pointer), so if you don't have to make a call this is time saved. One option (if you're optimising for speed and not space) is to make use of inline functions.
If function calls are unavoidable minimise the data that is being passed to the functions. For example passing pointers is likely to be more efficient than passing structures.
When optimising for speed choose datatypes that are the native size for your platform. For example on a 32bit processor it is likely to be more efficient to manipulate 32bit values than 8 or 16 bit values. (side note - it is worth checking that the compiler is doing what you think it is. I've had situations where I've discovered that my compiler insisted on doing 16 bit arithmetic on 8 bit values with all of the to and from conversions to go with them)
Find data that can be precalculated, and either calculate during initialisation or (better yet) at compile time. For example when implementing a CRC you can either calculate your CRC values on the fly (using the polynomial directly) which is great for size (but dreadful for performance), or you can generate a table of all of the interim values - which is a much faster implementation, to the detriment of the size.
Localise your data. If you're manipulating a blob of data often your processor may be able to speed things up by storing it all in cache. And your compiler may be able to use shorter instructions that are suited to more localised data (eg. instructions that use 8 bit offsets instead of 32 bit)
In the same vein, localise your functions. For the same reasons.
Work out the assumptions that you can make about the operations that you're performing and find ways of exploiting them. For example, on an 8 bit platform if the only operation that at you're doing on a 32 bit value is an increment you may find that you can do better than the compiler by inlining (or creating a macro) specifically for this purpose, rather than using a normal arithmetic operation.
Avoid expensive instructions - division is a prime example.
The "register" keyword can be your friend (although hopefully your compiler has a pretty good idea about your register usage). If you're going to use "register" it's likely that you'll have to declare the local variables that you want "register"ed first.
Be consistent with your data types. If you are doing arithmetic on a mixture of data types (eg. shorts and ints, doubles and floats) then the compiler is adding implicit type conversions for each mismatch. This is wasted cpu cycles that may not be necessary.
Most of the options listed above can be used as part of normal practice without any ill effects. However if you're really trying to eke out the best performance:
- Investigate where you can (safely) disable error checking. It's not recommended, but it will save you some space and cycles.
- Hand craft portions of your code in assembler. This of course means that your code is no longer portable but where that's not an issue you may find savings here. Be aware though that there is potentially time lost moving data into and out of the registers that you have at your disposal (ie. to satisfy the register usage of your compiler). Also be aware that your compiler should be doing a pretty good job on its own. (of course there are exceptions)
As everybody else has said: profile, profile profile.
As for actual techniques, one that I don't think has been mentioned yet:
Hot & Cold Data Separation: Staying within the CPU's cache is incredibly important. One way of helping to do this is by splitting your data structures into frequently accessed ("hot") and rarely accessed ("cold") sections.
An example: Suppose you have a structure for a customer that looks something like this:
struct Customer
{
int ID;
int AccountNumber;
char Name[128];
char Address[256];
};
Customer customers[1000];
Now, lets assume that you want to access the ID and AccountNumber a lot, but not so much the name and address. What you'd do is to split it into two:
struct CustomerAccount
{
int ID;
int AccountNumber;
CustomerData *pData;
};
struct CustomerData
{
char Name[128];
char Address[256];
};
CustomerAccount customers[1000];
In this way, when you're looping through your "customers" array, each entry is only 12 bytes and so you can fit many more entries in the cache. This can be a huge win if you can apply it to situations like the inner loop of a rendering engine.
My favorite technique is to use a good profiler. Without a good profile telling you where the bottleneck lies, no tricks and techniques are going to help you.
most common techniques I encountered are:
loop unrolling
loop optimization for better cache prefetch
(i.e. do N operations in M cycles instead of NxM singular operations)
data aligning
inline functions
hand-crafted asm snippets
As for general recommendations, most of them are already sounded:
choose better algos
use profiler
don't optimize if it doesn't give 20-30% performance boost
For low-level optimization:
START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER macros from ffmpeg (clock-level accuracy for measurement of any code).
Oprofile, of course, for profiling.
Enormous amounts of hand-coded assembly (just do a wc -l on x264's /common/x86 directory, and then remember most of the code is templated).
Careful coding in general; shorter code is usually better.
Smart low-level algorithms, like the 64-bit bitstream writer I wrote that uses only a single if and no else.
Explicit write-combining.
Taking into account important weird aspects of processors, like Intel's cacheline split issue.
Finding cases where one can losslessly or near-losslessly make an early termination, where the early-termination check costs much less than the speed one gains from it.
Actually inlined assembly for tasks which are far more suited to the x86 SIMD unit, such as median calculations (requires compile-time check for MMX support).
First and foremost, use a better/faster algorithm. There is no point optimizing code that is slow by design.
When optimizing for speed, trade memory for speed: lookup tables of precomputed values, binary trees, write faster custom implementation of system calls...
When trading speed for memory: use in-memory compression
Avoid using the heap. Use obstacks or pool-allocator for identical sized objects. Put small things with short lifetime onto the stack. alloca still exists.
Pre-mature optimization is the root of all evil!
;)
As my applications usually don't need much CPU time by design, I focus on the size my binaries on disk and in memory. What I do mostly is looking out for statically sized arrays and replacing them with dynamically allocated memory where it's worth the additional effort of free'ing the memory later. To cut down the size of the binary, I look for big arrays that are initialized at compile time and put the initializiation to runtime.
char buf[1024] = { 0, };
/* becomes: */
char buf[1024];
memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf));
This will remove the 1024 zero-bytes from the binaries .DATA section and will instead create the buffer on the stack at runtime and the fill it with zeros.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and I like to cache things. It's not C specific but depending on what you're caching, it can give you a huge boost in performance.
PS: Please let us know when your list is finished, I'm very curious. ;)
If possible, compare with 0, not with arbitrary numbers, especially in loops, because comparison with 0 is often implemented with separate, faster assembler commands.
For example, if possible, write
for (i=n; i!=0; --i) { ... }
instead of
for (i=0; i!=n; ++i) { ... }
Another thing that was not mentioned:
Know your requirements: don't optimize for situations that will unlikely or never happen, concentrate on the most bang for the buck
basics/general:
Do not optimize when you have no problem.
Know your platform/CPU...
...know it thoroughly
know your ABI
Let the compiler do the optimization, just help it with the job.
some things that have actually helped:
Opt for size/memory:
Use bitfields for storing bools
re-use big global arrays by overlaying with a union (be careful)
Opt for speed (be careful):
use precomputed tables where possible
place critical functions/data in fast memory
Use dedicated registers for often used globals
count to-zero, zero flag is free
Difficult to summarize ...
Data structures:
Splitting of a data structure depending on case of usage is extremely important. It is common to see a structure that holds data that is accessed based on a flow control. This situation can lower significantly the cache usage.
To take into account cache line size and prefetch rules.
To reorder the members of the structure to obtain a sequential access to them from your code
Algorithms:
Take time to think about your problem and to find the correct algorithm.
Know the limitations of the algorithm you choose (a radix-sort/quick-sort for 10 elements to be sorted might not be the best choice).
Low level:
As for the latest processors it is not recommended to unroll a loop that has a small body. The processor provides its own detection mechanism for this and will short-circuit whole section of its pipeline.
Trust the HW prefetcher. Of course if your data structures are well designed ;)
Care about your L2 cache line misses.
Try to reduce as much as possible the local working set of your application as the processors are leaning to smaller caches per cores (C2D enjoyed a 3MB per core max where iCore7 will provide a max of 256KB per core + 8MB shared to all cores for a quad core die.).
The most important of all: Measure early, Measure often and never ever makes assumptions, base your thinking and optimizations on data retrieved by a profiler (please use PTU).
Another hint, performance is key to the success of an application and should be considered at design time and you should have clear performance targets.
This is far from being exhaustive but should provide an interesting base.
These days, the most important things in optimzation are:
respecting the cache - try to access memory in simple patterns, and don't unroll loops just for fun. Use arrays instead of data structures with lots of pointer chasing and it'll probably be faster for small amounts of data. And don't make anything too big.
avoiding latency - try to avoid divisions and stuff that's slow if other calculations depend on them immediately. Memory accesses that depend on other memory accesses (ie, a[b[c]]) are bad.
avoiding unpredictabilty - a lot of if/elses with unpredictable conditions, or conditions that introduce more latency, will really mess you up. There's a lot of branchless math tricks that are useful here, but they increase latency and are only useful if you really need them. Otherwise, just write simple code and don't have crazy loop conditions.
Don't bother with optimizations that involve copy-and-pasting your code (like loop unrolling), or reordering loops by hand. The compiler usually does a better job than you at doing this, but most of them aren't smart enough to undo it.
Collecting profiles of code execution get you 50% of the way there. The other 50% deals with analyzing these reports.
Further, if you use GCC or VisualC++, you can use "profile guided optimization" where the compiler will take info from previous executions and reschedule instructions to make the CPU happier.
Inline functions! Inspired by the profiling fans here I profiled an application of mine and found a small function that does some bitshifting on MP3 frames. It makes about 90% of all function calls in my applcation, so I made it inline and voila - the program now uses half of the CPU time it did before.
On most of embedded system i worked there was no profiling tools, so it's nice to say use profiler but not very practical.
First rule in speed optimization is - find your critical path.
Usually you will find that this path is not so long and not so complex. It's hard to say in generic way how to optimize this it's depend on what are you doing and what is in your power to do. For example you want usually avoid memcpy on critical path, so ever you need to use DMA or optimize, but what if you hw does not have DMA ? check if memcpy implementation is a best one if not rewrite it.
Do not use dynamic allocation at all in embedded but if you do for some reason don't do it in critical path.
Organize your thread priorities correctly, what is correctly is real question and it's clearly system specific.
We use very simple tools to analyze the bottle-necks, simple macro that store the time-stamp and index. Few (2-3) runs in 90% of cases will find where you spend your time.
And the last one is code review a very important one. In most case we avoid performance problem during code review very effective way :)
Measure performance.
Use realistic and non-trivial benchmarks. Remember that "everything is fast for small N".
Use a profiler to find hotspots.
Reduce number of dynamic memory allocations, disk accesses, database accesses, network accesses, and user/kernel transitions, because these often tend to be hotspots.
Measure performance.
In addition, you should measure performance.
Sometimes you have to decide whether it is more space or more speed that you are after, which will lead to almost opposite optimizations. For example, to get the most out of you space, you pack structures e.g. #pragma pack(1) and use bit fields in structures. For more speed you pack to align with the processors preference and avoid bitfields.
Another trick is picking the right re-sizing algorithms for growing arrays via realloc, or better still writing your own heap manager based on your particular application. Don't assume the one that comes with the compiler is the best possible solution for every application.
If someone doesn't have an answer to that question, it could be they don't know much.
It could also be that they know a lot. I know a lot (IMHO :-), and if I were asked that question, I would be asking you back: Why do you think that's important?
The problem is, any a-priori notions about performance, if they are not informed by a specific situation, are guesses by definition.
I think it is important to know coding techniques for performance, but I think it is even more important to know not to use them, until diagnosis reveals that there is a problem and what it is.
Now I'm going to contradict myself and say, if you do that, you learn how to recognize the design approaches that lead to trouble so you can avoid them, and to a novice, that sounds like premature optimization.
To give you a concrete example, this is a C application that was optimized.
Great lists. I will just add one tip I didn't saw in the above lists that in some case can yield huge optimisation for minimal cost.
bypass linker
if you have some application divided in two files, say main.c and lib.c, in many cases you can just add a \#include "lib.c" in your main.c That will completely bypass linker and allow for much more efficient optimisation for compiler.
The same effect can be achieved optimizing dependencies between files, but the cost of changes is usually higher.
Sometimes Google is the best algorithm optimization tool. When I have a complex problem, a bit of searching reveals some guys with PhD's have found a mapping between this and a well-known problem and have already done most of the work.
I would recommend optimizing using more efficient algorithms and not do it as an afterthought but code it that way from the start. Let the compiler work out the details on the small things as it knows more about the target processor than you do.
For one, I rarely use loops to look things up, I add items to a hashtable and then use the hashtable to lookup the results.
For example you have a string to lookup and then 50 possible values. So instead of doing 50 strcmps, you add all 50 strings to a hashtable and give each a unique number ( you only have to do this once ). Then you lookup the target string in the hashtable and have one large switch with all 50 cases ( or have functions pointers ).
When looking up things with common sets of input ( like css rules ), I use fast code to keep track of the only possible solitions and then iterate thought those to find a match. Once I have a match I save the results into a hashtable ( as a cache ) and then use the cache results if I get that same input set later.
My main tools for faster code are:
hashtable - for quick lookups and for caching results
qsort - it's the only sort I use
bsp - for looking up things based on area ( map rendering etc )
I am evaluating a network+rendering workload for my project.
The program continuously runs a main loop:
while (true) {
doSomething()
drawSomething()
doSomething2()
sendSomething()
}
The main loop runs more than 60 times per second.
I want to see the performance breakdown, how much time each procedure takes.
My concern is that if I print the time interval for every entrance and exit of each procedure,
It would incur huge performance overhead.
I am curious what is an idiomatic way of measuring the performance.
Printing of logging is good enough?
Generally: For repeated short things, you can just time the whole repeat loop. (But microbenchmarking is hard; easy to distort results unless you understand the implications of doing that; for very short things, throughput and latency are different, so measure both separately by making one iteration use the result of the previous or not. Also beware that branch prediction and caching can make something look fast in a microbenchmark when it would actually be costly if done one at a time between other work in a larger program.
e.g. loop unrolling and lookup tables often look good because there's no pressure on I-cache or D-cache from anything else.)
Or if you insist on timing each separate iteration, record the results in an array and print later; you don't want to invoke heavy-weight printing code inside your loop.
This question is way too broad to say anything more specific.
Many languages have benchmarking packages that will help you write microbenchmarks of a single function. Use them. e.g. for Java, JMH makes sure the function under test is warmed up and fully optimized by the JIT, and all that jazz, before doing timed runs. And runs it for a specified interval, counting how many iterations it completes. See How do I write a correct micro-benchmark in Java? for that and more.
Beware common microbenchmark pitfalls
Failure to warm up code / data caches and stuff: page faults within the timed region for touching new memory, or code / data cache misses, that wouldn't be part of normal operation. (Example of noticing this effect: Performance: memset; or example of a wrong conclusion based on this mistake)
Never-written memory (obtained fresh from the kernel) gets all its pages copy-on-write mapped to the same system-wide physical page (4K or 2M) of zeros if you read without writing, at least on Linux. So you can get cache hits but TLB misses. e.g. A large allocation from new / calloc / malloc, or a zero-initialized array in static storage in .bss. Use a non-zero initializer or memset.
Failure to give the CPU time to ramp up to max turbo: modern CPUs clock down to idle speeds to save power, only clocking up after a few milliseconds. (Or longer depending on the OS / HW).
related: on modern x86, RDTSC counts reference cycles, not core clock cycles, so it's subject to the same CPU-frequency variation effects as wall-clock time.
Most integer and FP arithmetic asm instructions (except divide and square root which are already slower than others) have performance (latency and throughput) that doesn't depend on the actual data. Except for subnormal aka denormal floating point being very slow, and in some cases (e.g. legacy x87 but not SSE2) also producing NaN or Inf can be slow.
On modern CPUs with out-of-order execution, some things are too short to truly time meaningfully, see also this. Performance of a tiny block of assembly language (e.g. generated by a compiler for one function) can't be characterized by a single number, even if it doesn't branch or access memory (so no chance of mispredict or cache miss). It has latency from inputs to outputs, but different throughput if run repeatedly with independent inputs is higher. e.g. an add instruction on a Skylake CPU has 4/clock throughput, but 1 cycle latency. So dummy = foo(x) can be 4x faster than x = foo(x); in a loop. Floating-point instructions have higher latency than integer, so it's often a bigger deal. Memory access is also pipelined on most CPUs, so looping over an array (address for next load easy to calculate) is often much faster than walking a linked list (address for next load isn't available until the previous load completes).
Obviously performance can differ between CPUs; in the big picture usually it's rare for version A to be faster on Intel, version B to be faster on AMD, but that can easily happen in the small scale. When reporting / recording benchmark numbers, always note what CPU you tested on.
Related to the above and below points: you can't "benchmark the * operator" in C in general, for example. Some use-cases for it will compile very differently from others, e.g. tmp = foo * i; in a loop can often turn into tmp += foo (strength reduction), or if the multiplier is a constant power of 2 the compiler will just use a shift. The same operator in the source can compile to very different instructions, depending on surrounding code.
You need to compile with optimization enabled, but you also need to stop the compiler from optimizing away the work, or hoisting it out of a loop. Make sure you use the result (e.g. print it or store it to a volatile) so the compiler has to produce it. For an array, volatile double sink = output[argc]; is a useful trick: the compiler doesn't know the value of argc so it has to generate the whole array, but you don't need to read the whole array or even call an RNG function. (Unless the compiler aggressively transforms to only calculate the one output selected by argc, but that tends not to be a problem in practice.)
For inputs, use a random number or argc or something instead of a compile-time constant so your compiler can't do constant-propagation for things that won't be constants in your real use-case. In C you can sometimes use inline asm or volatile for this, e.g. the stuff this question is asking about. A good benchmarking package like Google Benchmark will include functions for this.
If the real use-case for a function lets it inline into callers where some inputs are constant, or the operations can be optimized into other work, it's not very useful to benchmark it on its own.
Big complicated functions with special handling for lots of special cases can look fast in a microbenchmark when you run them repeatedly, especially with the same input every time. In real life use-cases, branch prediction often won't be primed for that function with that input. Also, a massively unrolled loop can look good in a microbenchmark, but in real life it slows everything else down with its big instruction-cache footprint leading to eviction of other code.
Related to that last point: Don't tune only for huge inputs, if the real use-case for a function includes a lot of small inputs. e.g. a memcpy implementation that's great for huge inputs but takes too long to figure out which strategy to use for small inputs might not be good. It's a tradeoff; make sure it's good enough for large inputs (for an appropriate definition of "enough"), but also keep overhead low for small inputs.
Litmus tests:
If you're benchmarking two functions in one program: if reversing the order of testing changes the results, your benchmark isn't fair. e.g. function A might only look slow because you're testing it first, with insufficient warm-up. example: Why is std::vector slower than an array? (it's not, whichever loop runs first has to pay for all the page faults and cache misses; the 2nd just zooms through filling the same memory.)
Increasing the iteration count of a repeat loop should linearly increase the total time, and not affect the calculated time-per-call. If not, then you have non-negligible measurement overhead or your code optimized away (e.g. hoisted out of the loop and runs only once instead of N times).
Vary other test parameters as a sanity check.
For C / C++, see also Simple for() loop benchmark takes the same time with any loop bound where I went into some more detail about microbenchmarking and using volatile or asm to stop important work from optimizing away with gcc/clang.
Is a pointer indirection (to fetch a value) more costly than a conditional?
I've observed that most decent compilers can precompute a pointer indirection to varying degrees--possibly removing most branching instructions--but what I'm interested in is whether the cost of an indirection is greater than the cost of a branch point in the generated code.
I would expect that if the data referenced by the pointer is not in a cache at runtime that a cache flush might occur, but I don't have any data to back that.
Does anyone have solid data (or a justifiable opinion) on the matter?
EDIT: Several posters noted that there is no "general case" on the cost of branching: it varies wildly from chip to chip.
If you happen to know of a notable case where branching would be cheaper (with or without branch prediction) than an in-cache indirection, please mention it.
This is very much dependant on the circumstances.
1 How often is the data in cache (L1, L2, L3) or and how often it must be fetched all the way from the RAM?
A fetch from RAM will take around 10-40ns. Of course, that will fill a whole cache-line in little more than that, so if you then use the next few bytes as well, it will definitely not "hurt as bad".
2 What processor is it?
Older Intel Pentium4 were famous for their long pipeline stages, and would take 25-30 clockcycles (~15ns at 2GHz) to "recover" from a branch that was mispredicted.
3 How "predictable" is the condition?
Branch prediction really helps in modern processors, and they can cope quite well with "unpredictable" branches too, but it does hurt a little bit.
4 How "busy" and "dirty" is the cache?
If you have to throw out some dirty data to fill the cache-line, it will take another 15-50ns on top of the "fetch the data in" time.
The indirection itself will be a fast instruction, but of course, if the next instruction uses the data immediately after, you may not be able to execute that instruction immediately - even if the data is in L1 cache.
On a good day (well predicted, target in cache, wind in the right direction, etc), a branch, on the other hand, takes 3-7 cycles.
And finally, of course, the compiler USUALLY knows quite well what works best... ;)
In summary, it's hard to say for sure, and the only way to tell what is better IN YOUR case would be to benchmark alternative solutions. I would thin that an indirect memory access is faster than a jump, but without seeing what code your source compiles to, it's quite hard to say.
It would really depend on your platform. There is no one right answer without looking at the innards of the target CPU. My advice would be to measure it both ways in a test app to see if there is even a noticeable difference.
My gut instinct would be that on a modern CPU, branching through a function pointer and conditional branching both rely on the accuracy of the branch predictor, so I'd expect similar performance from the two techniques if the predictor is presented with similar workloads. (i.e. if it always ends up branching the same way, expect it to be fast; if it's hard to predict, expect it to hurt.) But the only way to know for sure is to run a real test on your target platform.
It depends from processor to processor, but depending on the set of data you're working with, a pipeline flush caused by a mispredicted branch (or badly ordered instructions in some cases) can be more damaging to the speed than a simple cache miss.
In the PowerPC case, for instance, branches not taken (but predicted to be taken) cost about 22 cycles (the time taken to re-fill the pipeline), while a L1 cache miss may cost 600 or so memory cycles. However, if you're going to access contiguous data, it may be better to not branch and let the processor cache-miss your data at the cost of 3 cycles (branches predicted to be taken and taken) for every set of data you're processing.
It all boils down to: test it yourself. The answer is not definitive for all problems.
Since the processor would have to predict the conditional answer in order to plan which instruction has more chances of having to be executed, I would say that the actual cost of the instructions is not important.
Conditional instructions are bad efficiency wise because they make the process flow unpredictable.
I'm looking to see what can a programmer do in C, that can determine the performance and/or the size of the generated object file.
For e.g,
1. Declaring simple get/set functions as inline may increase performance (at the cost of a larger footprint)
2. For loops that do not use the value of the loop variable itself, count down to zero instead of counting up to a certain value
etc.
It looks like compilers now have advanced to a level where "simple" tricks (like the two points above) are not required at all. Appropriate options during compilation do the job anyway. Heck, I also saw posts here on how compilers handle recursion - that was very interesting! So what are we left to do at a C level then? :)
My specific environment is: GCC 4.3.3 re-targeted for ARM architecture (v4). But responses on other compilers/processors are also welcome and will be munched upon.
PS: This approach of mine goes against the usual "code first!, then benchmark, and finally optimize" approach.
Edit: Just like it so happens, I found a similar post after posting the question: Should we still be optimizing "in the small"?
One thing I can think of that a compiler probably won't optimize is "cache-friendliness": If you're iterating over a two-dimensional array in row-major order, say, make sure your inner loop runs across the column index to avoid cache thrashing. Having the inner loop run over the wrong index can cause a huge performance hit.
This applies to all programming languages, but if you're programming in C, performance is probably critical to you, so it's especially relevant.
"Always" know the time and space complexity of your algorithms. The compiler will never be able to do that job as well as you can. :)
Compilers these days still aren't very good at vectorizing your code so you'll still want to do the SIMD implementation of most algorithms yourself.
Choosing the right datastructures for your exact problem can dramatically increase performance (I've seen cases where moving from a Kd-tree to a BVH would do that, in that specific case).
Compilers might pad some structs/ variables to fit into the cache but other cache optimizations such as the locality of your data are still up to you.
Compilers still don't automatically make your code multithreaded and using openmp, in my experience, doesn't really help much. (You really have to understand openmp anyway to dramatically increase performance). So currently, you're on your own doing multithreading.
To add to what Martin says above about cache-friendliness:
reordering your structures such that fields which are commonly accessed together are in the same cache line can help (for instance by loading just one cache line rather than two.) You are essentially increasing the density of useful data in your data cache by doing this. There is a linux tool which can help you in doing this: dwarves 1. http://www.linuxinsight.com/files/ols2007/melo-reprint.pdf
you can use a similar strategy for increasing density of your code. In gcc you can mark hot and cold branches using likely/unlikely tags. That enables gcc to keep the cold branches separately which helps in increasing the icache density.
And now for something completely different:
for fields that might be accessed (read and written) across CPUs, the opposite strategy makes sense. The trouble is that for coherence purposes only one CPU can be allowed to write to the same address (in reality the same cacheline.) This can lead to a condition called cache-line ping pong. This is pretty bad and could be worse if that cache-line contains other unrelated data. Here, padding this contended data to a cache-line length makes sense.
Note: these clearly are micro-optimizations, to be done only at later stages when you are trying to wring the last bits of performance from your code.
PreComputation where possible... (sorry but its not always possible... I did extensive precomputation on my chess engine.) Store those results in memory, keeping cache in mind.. the bigger the size of precomputation data in memory the lesser is the chance of doing a cache hit. Since most of recent hardware is multicore you can design your application to target it.
if you are using several big arrays make sure you group them close to each other on where they would be used, boosting cache hits
Many people are not aware of this: Define an inline label (varies by compiler) which means inline, in its intent - many compilers place the keyword in an entirely different context from the original meaning. There are also ways to increase the inline size limits, before the compiler begins popping trivial things out of line. Human directed inlining can produce much faster code (compilers are often conservative, or do not account for enough of the program), but you need to learn to use it correctly, because it can (easily) be counterproductive. And yes, this absolutely applies to code size as well as speed.