1
0
mirror of https://github.com/golang/go synced 2024-11-12 10:30:23 -07:00
go/test/fixedbugs/issue13799.go

191 lines
4.7 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

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
// 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 {
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$"
// The panic seems to be triggered when m is modified inside a
// closure that is both recursively called and reassigned to in a
// loop.
// Cause of bug -- escape of closure failed to escape (shared) data structures
// of map. Assign to fn declared outside of loop triggers escape of closure.
// Heap -> stack pointer eventually causes badness when stack reallocation
// occurs.
var fn func() // ERROR "moved to heap: fn$"
for i := 0; i < maxI; i++ { // ERROR "moved to heap: 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$"
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++
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 {
panic(fmt.Sprintf("iter %d: maxI = %d, len(m) = %d", iter, maxI, len(m))) // ERROR "iter escapes to heap$" "len\(m\) escapes to heap$" "maxI escapes to heap$" "... 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
}
}
func test2(iter int) {
const maxI = 500
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
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 {
panic(fmt.Sprintf("iter %d: maxI = %d, len(m) = %d", iter, maxI, len(m))) // ERROR "iter escapes to heap$" "len\(m\) escapes to heap$" "maxI escapes to heap$" "... 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
}
}
func test3(iter int) {
const maxI = 500
var x int // ERROR "moved to heap: x$"
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$"
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++
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 {
panic(fmt.Sprintf("iter %d: maxI = %d, *m = %d", iter, maxI, *m)) // ERROR "\*m escapes to heap$" "iter escapes to heap$" "maxI escapes to heap$" "... 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
}
}
func test4(iter int) {
const maxI = 500
var x int
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
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 {
panic(fmt.Sprintf("iter %d: maxI = %d, *m = %d", iter, maxI, *m)) // ERROR "\*m escapes to heap$" "iter escapes to heap$" "maxI 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
}
}
type str struct {
m *int
}
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$"
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
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 {
panic(fmt.Sprintf("iter %d: maxI = %d, *m = %d", iter, maxI, *m)) // ERROR "\*m escapes to heap$" "iter escapes to heap$" "maxI escapes to heap$" "... 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
}
}
func test6(iter int) {
const maxI = 500
var x int
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
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 {
panic(fmt.Sprintf("iter %d: maxI = %d, *m = %d", iter, maxI, *m)) // ERROR "\*m escapes to heap$" "iter escapes to heap$" "maxI escapes to heap$" "... 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
}
}