This is a simple tweak to allow a bit more mid-stack inlining.
In cases like this:
func f() {
g()
}
We'd really like to inline f into its callers. It can't hurt.
We implement this optimization by making calls a bit cheaper, enough
to afford a single call in the function body, but not 2.
The remaining budget allows for some argument modification, or perhaps
a wrapping conditional:
func f(x int) {
g(x, 0)
}
func f(x int) {
if x > 0 {
g()
}
}
Update #19348
Change-Id: Ifb1ea0dd1db216c3fd5c453c31c3355561fe406f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/147361
Reviewed-by: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Calls to a closure held in a local, non-escaping,
variable can be inlined, provided the closure body
can be inlined and the variable is never written to.
The current implementation has the following limitations:
- closures with captured variables are not inlined because
doing so naively triggers invariant violation in the SSA
phase
- re-assignment check is currently approximated by checking
the Addrtaken property of the variable which should be safe
but may miss optimization opportunities if the address is
not used for a write before the invocation
Updates #15561
Change-Id: I508cad5d28f027bd7e933b1f793c14dcfef8b5a1
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/65071
Run-TryBot: Daniel Martí <mvdan@mvdan.cc>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Hugues Bruant <hugues.bruant@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
We've supported inlining methods called as functions for a while now.
Change-Id: I53fba426e45f91d65a38f00456c2ae1527372b50
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/69530
Run-TryBot: Matthew Dempsky <mdempsky@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
Allow inlining of functions with switch statements as long as they don't
contain a break or type switch.
Fixes#13071
Change-Id: I057be351ea4584def1a744ee87eafa5df47a7f6d
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20824
Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
Consider functions with an ODCLCONST for inlining and modify exprfmt to
ignore those nodes when exporting. Don't add symbols to the export list
if there is no definition. This occurs when OLITERAL symbols are looked
up via Pkglookup for non-exported symbols.
Fixes#7655
Change-Id: I1de827850f4c69e58107447314fe7433e378e069
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20773
Run-TryBot: Todd Neal <todd@tneal.org>
Reviewed-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
Some tests need to disable inlining of a function. It's currently done
in one of a few ways (adding a function call, an empty switch, or a
defer). Add support for a less fragile 'go:noinline' directive that
prevents inlining.
Fixes#12312
Change-Id: Ife444e13361b4a927709d81aa41e448f32eec8d4
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/13911
Run-TryBot: Todd Neal <todd@tneal.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
Inlining refuses to inline bodies containing an actual function call, so that
if that call or a child uses runtime.Caller it cannot observe
the inlining.
However, inlining was also refusing to inline bodies that contained
function calls that were themselves inlined away. For example:
func f() int {
return f1()
}
func f1() int {
return f2()
}
func f2() int {
return 2
}
The f2 call in f1 would be inlined, but the f1 call in f would not,
because f1's call to f2 blocked the inlining, despite itself eventually
being inlined away.
Account properly for this kind of transitive inlining and enable.
Also bump the inlining budget a bit, so that the runtime's
heapBits.next is inlined.
This reduces the time for '6g *.go' in html/template by around 12% (!).
(For what it's worth, closing Chrome reduces the time by about 17%.)
Change-Id: If1aa673bf3e583082dcfb5f223e67355c984bfc1
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/5952
Reviewed-by: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
