cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
// errorcheck -0 -m -l
2016-04-10 15:32:26 -06:00
// Copyright 2015 The Go Authors. All rights reserved.
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style
// license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
// Test, using compiler diagnostic flags, that the escape analysis is working.
// Compiles but does not run. Inlining is disabled.
// Registerization is disabled too (-N), which should
// have no effect on escape analysis.
package main
import "fmt"
func main ( ) {
// Just run test over and over again. This main func is just for
// convenience; if test were the main func, we could also trigger
// the panic just by running the program over and over again
// (sometimes it takes 1 time, sometimes it takes ~4,000+).
for iter := 0 ; ; iter ++ {
if iter % 50 == 0 {
2019-09-12 11:18:03 -06:00
fmt . Println ( iter ) // ERROR "iter escapes to heap$" "... argument does not escape$"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
}
test1 ( iter )
test2 ( iter )
test3 ( iter )
test4 ( iter )
test5 ( iter )
test6 ( iter )
}
}
func test1 ( iter int ) {
const maxI = 500
m := make ( map [ int ] [ ] int ) // ERROR "make\(map\[int\]\[\]int\) escapes to heap$"
// The panic seems to be triggered when m is modified inside a
// closure that is both recursively called and reassigned to in a
// loop.
// Cause of bug -- escape of closure failed to escape (shared) data structures
// of map. Assign to fn declared outside of loop triggers escape of closure.
// Heap -> stack pointer eventually causes badness when stack reallocation
// occurs.
cmd/compile: experimental loop iterator capture semantics change
Adds:
GOEXPERIMENT=loopvar (expected way of invoking)
-d=loopvar={-1,0,1,2,11,12} (for per-package control and/or logging)
-d=loopvarhash=... (for hash debugging)
loopvar=11,12 are for testing, benchmarking, and debugging.
If enabled,for loops of the form `for x,y := range thing`, if x and/or
y are addressed or captured by a closure, are transformed by renaming
x/y to a temporary and prepending an assignment to the body of the
loop x := tmp_x. This changes the loop semantics by making each
iteration's instance of x be distinct from the others (currently they
are all aliased, and when this matters, it is almost always a bug).
3-range with captured iteration variables are also transformed,
though it is a more complex transformation.
"Optimized" to do a simpler transformation for
3-clause for where the increment is empty.
(Prior optimization of address-taking under Return disabled, because
it was incorrect; returns can have loops for children. Restored in
a later CL.)
Includes support for -d=loopvarhash=<binary string> intended for use
with hash search and GOCOMPILEDEBUG=loopvarhash=<binary string>
(use `gossahash -e loopvarhash command-that-fails`).
Minor feature upgrades to hash-triggered features; clients can specify
that file-position hashes use only the most-inline position, and/or that
they use only the basenames of source files (not the full directory path).
Most-inlined is the right choice for debugging loop-iteration change
once the semantics are linked to the package across inlining; basename-only
makes it tractable to write tests (which, otherwise, depend on the full
pathname of the source file and thus vary).
Updates #57969.
Change-Id: I180a51a3f8d4173f6210c861f10de23de8a1b1db
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/411904
Reviewed-by: Matthew Dempsky <mdempsky@google.com>
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gopher Robot <gobot@golang.org>
2022-06-12 13:33:57 -06:00
var fn func ( ) // ERROR "moved to heap: fn$"
i := 0 // ERROR "moved to heap: i$"
for ; i < maxI ; i ++ {
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
// var fn func() // this makes it work, because fn stays off heap
j := 0 // ERROR "moved to heap: j$"
fn = func ( ) { // ERROR "func literal escapes to heap$"
2019-04-01 12:58:33 -06:00
m [ i ] = append ( m [ i ] , 0 )
if j < 25 {
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
j ++
2019-04-01 12:58:33 -06:00
fn ( )
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
}
}
fn ( )
}
if len ( m ) != maxI {
2023-09-06 15:00:30 -06:00
panic ( fmt . Sprintf ( "iter %d: maxI = %d, len(m) = %d" , iter , maxI , len ( m ) ) ) // ERROR "iter escapes to heap$" "len\(m\) escapes to heap$" "500 escapes to heap$" "... argument does not escape$" "fmt.Sprintf\(.*\) escapes to heap"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
}
}
func test2 ( iter int ) {
const maxI = 500
2019-09-12 11:18:03 -06:00
m := make ( map [ int ] [ ] int ) // ERROR "make\(map\[int\]\[\]int\) does not escape$"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
// var fn func()
for i := 0 ; i < maxI ; i ++ {
var fn func ( ) // this makes it work, because fn stays off heap
j := 0
2019-09-12 11:18:03 -06:00
fn = func ( ) { // ERROR "func literal does not escape$"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
m [ i ] = append ( m [ i ] , 0 )
if j < 25 {
j ++
fn ( )
}
}
fn ( )
}
if len ( m ) != maxI {
2023-09-06 15:00:30 -06:00
panic ( fmt . Sprintf ( "iter %d: maxI = %d, len(m) = %d" , iter , maxI , len ( m ) ) ) // ERROR "iter escapes to heap$" "len\(m\) escapes to heap$" "500 escapes to heap$" "... argument does not escape$" "fmt.Sprintf\(.*\) escapes to heap"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
}
}
func test3 ( iter int ) {
const maxI = 500
var x int // ERROR "moved to heap: x$"
2019-04-01 12:58:33 -06:00
m := & x
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
var fn func ( ) // ERROR "moved to heap: fn$"
for i := 0 ; i < maxI ; i ++ {
// var fn func() // this makes it work, because fn stays off heap
j := 0 // ERROR "moved to heap: j$"
fn = func ( ) { // ERROR "func literal escapes to heap$"
2019-04-01 12:58:33 -06:00
if j < 100 {
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
j ++
2019-04-01 12:58:33 -06:00
fn ( )
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
} else {
* m = * m + 1
}
}
fn ( )
}
if * m != maxI {
2023-09-06 15:00:30 -06:00
panic ( fmt . Sprintf ( "iter %d: maxI = %d, *m = %d" , iter , maxI , * m ) ) // ERROR "\*m escapes to heap$" "iter escapes to heap$" "500 escapes to heap$" "... argument does not escape$" "fmt.Sprintf\(.*\) escapes to heap"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
}
}
func test4 ( iter int ) {
const maxI = 500
var x int
2019-04-01 12:58:33 -06:00
m := & x
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
// var fn func()
for i := 0 ; i < maxI ; i ++ {
var fn func ( ) // this makes it work, because fn stays off heap
j := 0
2019-09-12 11:18:03 -06:00
fn = func ( ) { // ERROR "func literal does not escape$"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
if j < 100 {
j ++
fn ( )
} else {
* m = * m + 1
}
}
fn ( )
}
if * m != maxI {
2023-09-06 15:00:30 -06:00
panic ( fmt . Sprintf ( "iter %d: maxI = %d, *m = %d" , iter , maxI , * m ) ) // ERROR "\*m escapes to heap$" "iter escapes to heap$" "500 escapes to heap$" "... argument does not escape$" "fmt.Sprintf\(.*\) escapes to heap"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
}
}
type str struct {
m * int
}
2019-09-12 11:18:03 -06:00
func recur1 ( j int , s * str ) { // ERROR "s does not escape"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
if j < 100 {
j ++
recur1 ( j , s )
} else {
* s . m ++
}
}
func test5 ( iter int ) {
const maxI = 500
var x int // ERROR "moved to heap: x$"
2019-04-01 12:58:33 -06:00
m := & x
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
var fn * str
for i := 0 ; i < maxI ; i ++ {
// var fn *str // this makes it work, because fn stays off heap
2020-09-08 22:09:01 -06:00
fn = & str { m } // ERROR "&str{...} escapes to heap"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
recur1 ( 0 , fn )
}
if * m != maxI {
2023-09-06 15:00:30 -06:00
panic ( fmt . Sprintf ( "iter %d: maxI = %d, *m = %d" , iter , maxI , * m ) ) // ERROR "\*m escapes to heap$" "iter escapes to heap$" "500 escapes to heap$" "... argument does not escape$" "fmt.Sprintf\(.*\) escapes to heap"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
}
}
func test6 ( iter int ) {
const maxI = 500
var x int
2019-04-01 12:58:33 -06:00
m := & x
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
// var fn *str
for i := 0 ; i < maxI ; i ++ {
var fn * str // this makes it work, because fn stays off heap
2020-09-08 22:09:01 -06:00
fn = & str { m } // ERROR "&str{...} does not escape"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
recur1 ( 0 , fn )
}
if * m != maxI {
2023-09-06 15:00:30 -06:00
panic ( fmt . Sprintf ( "iter %d: maxI = %d, *m = %d" , iter , maxI , * m ) ) // ERROR "\*m escapes to heap$" "iter escapes to heap$" "500 escapes to heap$" "... argument does not escape$" "fmt.Sprintf\(.*\) escapes to heap"
cmd/compile: better modeling of escape across loop levels
Brief background on "why heap allocate". Things can be
forced to the heap for the following reasons:
1) address published, hence lifetime unknown.
2) size unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
3) multiplicity unknown/too large, cannot be stack allocated
4) reachable from heap (not necessarily published)
The bug here is a case of failing to enforce 4) when an
object Y was reachable from a heap allocation X forced
because of 3). It was found in the case of a closure
allocated within a loop (X) and assigned to a variable
outside the loop (multiplicity unknown) where the closure
also captured a map (Y) declared outside the loop (reachable
from heap). Note the variable declared outside the loop (Y)
is not published, has known size, and known multiplicity
(one). The only reason for heap allocation is that it was
reached from a heap allocated item (X), but because that was
not forced by publication, it has to be tracked by loop
level, but escape-loop level was not tracked and thus a bug
results.
The fix is that when a heap allocation is newly discovered,
use its looplevel as the minimum loop level for downstream
escape flooding.
Every attempt to generalize this bug to X-in-loop-
references-Y-outside loop succeeded, so the fix was aimed
to be general. Anywhere that loop level forces heap
allocation, the loop level is tracked. This is not yet
tested for all possible X and Y, but it is correctness-
conservative and because it caused only one trivial
regression in the escape tests, it is probably also
performance-conservative.
The new test checks the following:
1) in the map case, that if fn escapes, so does the map.
2) in the map case, if fn does not escape, neither does the map.
3) in the &x case, that if fn escapes, so does &x.
4) in the &x case, if fn does not escape, neither does &x.
Fixes #13799.
Change-Id: Ie280bef2bb86ec869c7c206789d0b68f080c3fdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/18234
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2016-01-04 14:44:20 -07:00
}
}
