The general policy for the current state of js/wasm is that it only
has to support tests that are also supported by nacl.
The test nilptr3.go makes assumptions about which nil checks can be
removed. Since WebAssembly does not signal on reading a null pointer,
all nil checks have to be explicit.
Updates #18892
Change-Id: I06a687860b8d22ae26b1c391499c0f5183e4c485
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/110096
Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
After benchmarking with a compiler modified to have better
spill location, it became clear that this method of checking
was actually faster on (at least) two different architectures
(ppc64 and amd64) and it also provides more timely interruption
of loops.
This change adds a modified FOR loop node "FORUNTIL" that
checks after executing the loop body instead of before (i.e.,
always at least once). This ensures that a pointer past the
end of a slice or array is not made visible to the garbage
collector.
Without the rescheduling checks inserted, the restructured
loop from this change apparently provides a 1% geomean
improvement on PPC64 running the go1 benchmarks; the
improvement on AMD64 is only 0.12%.
Inserting the rescheduling check exposed some peculiar bug
with the ssa test code for s390x; this was updated based on
initial code actually generated for GOARCH=s390x to use
appropriate OpArg, OpAddr, and OpVarDef.
NaCl is disabled in testing.
Change-Id: Ieafaa9a61d2a583ad00968110ef3e7a441abca50
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/36206
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com>
The test is inherently racy and vulnerable to starvation,
and within all.bash on some platforms that means it flakes.
Test is kept because it can be useful standalone to verify
behavior of GOEXPERIMENT=preeemptibleloops, and there is
likely to be further development of this feature in the
future.
There's also some question as to why it is flaking, because
though technically this is permitted, it's very odd in this
simple case.
Fixes#18589.
Change-Id: Ia0dd9037285c4a03122da4012c96981c9cc43b60
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/35051
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
Loop breaking with a counter. Benchmarked (see comments),
eyeball checked for sanity on popular loops. This code
ought to handle loops in general, and properly inserts phi
functions in cases where the earlier version might not have.
Includes test, plus modifications to test/run.go to deal with
timeout and killing looping test. Tests broken by the addition
of extra code (branch frequency and live vars) for added
checks turn the check insertion off.
If GOEXPERIMENT=preemptibleloops, the compiler inserts reschedule
checks on every backedge of every reducible loop. Alternately,
specifying GO_GCFLAGS=-d=ssa/insert_resched_checks/on will
enable it for a single compilation, but because the core Go
libraries contain some loops that may run long, this is less
likely to have the desired effect.
This is intended as a tool to help in the study and diagnosis
of GC and other latency problems, now that goal STW GC latency
is on the order of 100 microseconds or less.
Updates #17831.
Updates #10958.
Change-Id: I6206c163a5b0248e3f21eb4fc65f73a179e1f639
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/33910
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
