Return value optimization and copy elision in C

Question

Some people are not aware that it's possible to pass and return structs by value in C. My question is about the compiler making unnecessary copies when returning structs in C. Do C compilers such as GCC use Return value optimization(RVO) optimization or is this a C++ only concept? Everything I have read about RVO and copy elision is in regards to C++.

Let's consider an example. I'm currently implementing a double-double data type in C (or rather float-float to start with because I find it easy to unit test). Consider the following code.

typedef struct {
    float hi;
    float lo;
} doublefloat;

doublefloat quick_two_sum(float a, float b) {
    float s = a + b;
    float e = b - (s - a);
    return (doublefloat){s, e};
}

Will the compiler make a temporary copy of the doublefloat value I return or can the temporary copy be elided?

What about named return value optimization (NRVO) in C? I have another function

doublefloat df64_add(doublefloat a, doublefloat b) {
    doublefloat s, t;
    s = two_sum(a.hi, b.hi);
    t = two_sum(a.lo, b.lo);
    s.lo += t.hi;
    s = quick_two_sum(s.hi, s.lo);
    s.lo += t.lo;
    s = quick_two_sum(s.hi, s.lo);
    return s;
}

In this case i'm returning a named struct. Can the temporary copy in this case be elided?

It should be stated that this is a general question for C and that the code examples I have used here are only examples (when I optimize this I will be using SIMD with intrinsics anyway). I'm aware that I could look at the assembly output to see what the compiler does but I think this is an interesting question nevertheless.

Answer 1

RVO/NRVO are clearly allowed under the "as-if" rule in C.

In C++ you can get observable side-effects because you've overloaded the constructor, destructor, and/or assignment operator to give those side effects (e.g., print something out when one of those operations happens), but in C you don't have any ability to overload those operators, and the built-in ones have no observable side effects.

Without overloading them, you get no observable side-effects from copy elision, and therefore nothing to stop a compiler from doing it.

Answer 2

The reason why it's covered a lot for C++ is because in C++, RVO has side effects (ie. not calling the destructor of the temporary objects nor the copy constructor or assignment operator of the resulting objects).

In C, there's no possible side effect, only potential performance improvements. I see no reason such an optimization couldn't be performed by some compiler. At least, there is nothing that forbids it in the standard.

Anyway, optimization is compiler and optimization level-dependant, so I wouldn't bet on it for critical code paths, unless the compiler used is well defined and not expected to change (which is still often the case).