If x+delta cannot overflow/underflow, we can derive:
x+delta < x if delta<0 (this CL included)
x+delta > x if delta>0 (this CL not included due to
a recursive stack overflow)
Remove 95 bounds checks during ./make.bat
Fixes#51622
Change-Id: I60d9bd84c5d7e81bbf808508afd09be596644f09
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/406175
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Wayne Zuo <wdvxdr@golangcn.org>
TryBot-Result: Gopher Robot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Heschi Kreinick <heschi@google.com>
We don't need this special loop construct anymore now that we do
conservative GC scanning of the top of stack. Rewrite instead to a simple
pointer increment on every iteration. This leads to having a potential
past-the-end pointer at the end of the last iteration, but that value
immediately goes dead after the loop condition fails, and the past-the-end
pointer is never live across any call.
This simplifies and speeds up loops.
R=go1.20
TODO: actually delete all support for OFORUNTIL. It is now never generated,
but code to handle it (e.g. in ssagen) is still around.
TODO: in "for _, x := range" loops, we could get rid of the index
altogether and use a "pointer to the last element" reference to determine
when the loop is complete.
Fixes#53409
Change-Id: Ifc141600ff898a8bc6a75f793e575f8862679ba1
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/414876
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Cuong Manh Le <cuong.manhle.vn@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Heschi Kreinick <heschi@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gopher Robot <gobot@golang.org>
For this code:
z &= 63
_ = x<<z | x>>(64-z)
Now can prove 'x<<z' in bound. In ppc64 lowering pass, it will not
produce an extra '(ANDconst <typ.Int64> [63] z)' causing
codegen/rotate.go failed. Just remove the type check in rewrite rules
as the workaround.
Removes 32 bounds checks during make.bat.
Fixes#52563.
Change-Id: I14ed2c093ff5638dfea7de9bc7649c0f756dd71a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/404315
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Auto-Submit: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Wayne Zuo <wdvxdr@golangcn.org>
TryBot-Result: Gopher Robot <gobot@golang.org>
Currently, we keep track of slice len by mapping from slice ID to
len/cap SSA value. However, slice len/cap can have multiple SSA values,
so when updating fact table for slice len/cap, we only update in one
place.
Instead, we can take advantage of the transitive relations provided by
poset. So all duplicated slice lens are set as equal to one another.
When updating fact table for one, that fact will be reflected to all
others. The same mechanism is applied for slice cap.
Removes 15 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Fixes#42603
Change-Id: I32c07968824cc33765b1e441b3ae2c4b5f5997c3
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/273670
Trust: Cuong Manh Le <cuong.manhle.vn@gmail.com>
Run-TryBot: Cuong Manh Le <cuong.manhle.vn@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Go Bot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
CL 244579 added guard clauses to prevent a faulty state that was
possible under the incorrect logic of the uniquePred loop in
addLocalInductiveFacts. That faulty state was still making the
intended optimization, but not for the correct reason.
Removing the faulty state also removed the overly permissive application
of the optimization, and therefore made these two tests fail.
We disabled the tests of this optimization in CL 244579 to allow us to
quickly apply the fix in the CL. This CL now corrects the logic of the
uniquePred loop in order to apply the optimization correctly.
The comment above the uniquePred loop says that it will follow unique
predecessors until it reaches a join point. Without updating the child
node on each iteration, it cannot follow the chain of unique
predecessors more than one step. Adding the update to the child node
on each iteration of the loop allows the logic to follow the chain of
unique predecessors until reaching a join point (because a non-unique
predecessor will signify a join point).
Updates #40502.
Change-Id: I23d8367046a2ab3ce4be969631f9ba15dc533e6c
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/246157
Run-TryBot: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Go Bot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Trust: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org>
Currently in addLocalInductiveFacts, we only check whether
direct edge from if block to phi block exists. If not, the
following logic will treat the phi block as the first successor,
which is wrong.
This patch makes prove pass more conservative, so we disable
some cases in test/prove.go. We will do some optimization in
the following CL and enable these cases then.
Fixes#40367.
Change-Id: I27cf0248f3a82312a6f7dabe11c79a1a34cf5412
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/244579
Reviewed-by: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Taking over Zach's CL 212277. Just cleaned up and added a test.
For a positive, signed integer, an arithmetic right shift of count
(bit-width - 1) equals zero. e.g. int64(22) >> 63 -> 0. This CL makes
prove replace these right shifts with a zero-valued constant.
These shifts may arise in source code explicitly, but can also be
created by the generic rewrite of signed division by a power of 2.
// Signed divide by power of 2.
// n / c = n >> log(c) if n >= 0
// = (n+c-1) >> log(c) if n < 0
// We conditionally add c-1 by adding n>>63>>(64-log(c))
(first shift signed, second shift unsigned).
(Div64 <t> n (Const64 [c])) && isPowerOfTwo(c) ->
(Rsh64x64
(Add64 <t> n (Rsh64Ux64 <t>
(Rsh64x64 <t> n (Const64 <typ.UInt64> [63]))
(Const64 <typ.UInt64> [64-log2(c)])))
(Const64 <typ.UInt64> [log2(c)]))
If n is known to be positive, this rewrite includes an extra Add and 2
extra Rsh. This CL will allow prove to replace one of the extra Rsh with
a 0. That replacement then allows lateopt to remove all the unneccesary
fixups from the generic rewrite.
There is a rewrite rule to handle this case directly:
(Div64 n (Const64 [c])) && isNonNegative(n) && isPowerOfTwo(c) ->
(Rsh64Ux64 n (Const64 <typ.UInt64> [log2(c)]))
But this implementation of isNonNegative really only handles constants
and a few special operations like len/cap. The division could be
handled if the factsTable version of isNonNegative were available.
Unfortunately, the first opt pass happens before prove even has a
chance to deduce the numerator is non-negative, so the generic rewrite
has already fired and created the extra Ops discussed above.
Fixes#36159
By Printf count, this zeroes 137 right shifts when building std and cmd.
Change-Id: Iab486910ac9d7cfb86ace2835456002732b384a2
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/232857
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com>
The generic Greater and Geq ops can always be replaced with the Less and
Leq ops. This CL therefore removes them. This simplifies the compiler since
it reduces the number of operations that need handling in both code and in
rewrite rules. This will be especially true when adding control flow
optimizations such as the integer-in-range optimizations in CL 165998.
Change-Id: If0648b2b19998ac1bddccbf251283f3be4ec3040
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/220417
Run-TryBot: Michael Munday <mike.munday@ibm.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
When assessing whether A <= B, the poset's OrderedOrEqual has a passing
condition which permits A <= B, but is not sufficient to infer that A <= B.
This CL removes that incorrect passing condition.
Having identified that A and B are in the poset, the method will report that
A <= B if any of these three conditions are true:
(1) A and B are the same node in the poset.
- This means we know that A == B.
(2) There is a directed path, strict or not, from A -> B
- This means we know that, at least, A <= B, but A < B is possible.
(3) There is a directed path from B -> A, AND that path has no strict edges.
- This means we know that B <= A, but do not know that B < A.
In condition (3), we do not have enough information to say that A <= B, rather
we only know that B == A (which satisfies A <= B) is possible. The way I
understand it, a strict edge shows a known, strictly-ordered relation (<) but
the lack of a strict edge does not show the lack of a strictly-ordered relation.
The difference is highlighted by the example in #34802, where a bounds check is
incorrectly removed by prove, such that negative indexes into a slice
succeed:
n := make([]int, 1)
for i := -1; i <= 0; i++ {
fmt.Printf("i is %d\n", i)
n[i] = 1 // No Bounds check, program runs, assignment to n[-1] succeeds!!
}
When prove is checking the negative/failed branch from the bounds check at n[i],
in the signed domain we learn (0 > i || i >= len(n)). Because prove can't learn
the OR condition, we check whether we know that i is non-negative so we can
learn something, namely that i >= len(n). Prove uses the poset to check whether
we know that i is non-negative. At this point the poset holds the following
relations as a directed graph:
-1 <= i <= 0
-1 < 0
In poset.OrderedOrEqual, we are testing for 0 <= i. In this case, condition (3)
above is true because there is a non-strict path from i -> 0, and that path
does NOT have any strict edges. Because this condition is true, the poset
reports to prove that i is known to be >= 0. Knowing, incorrectly, that i >= 0,
prove learns from the failed bounds check that i >= len(n) in the signed domain.
When the slice, n, was created, prove learned that len(n) == 1. Because i is
also the induction variable for the loop, upon entering the loop, prove previously
learned that i is in [-1,0]. So when prove attempts to learn from the failed
bounds check, it finds the new fact, i > len(n), unsatisfiable given that it
previously learned that i <= 0 and len(n) = 1.
Fixes#34802
Change-Id: I235f4224bef97700c3aa5c01edcc595eb9f13afc
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/200759
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Nilcheck would move statements from NilCheck values to others that
turned out were already dead, which leads to lost statements. Better
to eliminate the dead code first.
One "error" is removed from test/prove.go because the code is
actually dead, and the additional deadcode pass removes it before
prove can run.
Change-Id: If75926ca1acbb59c7ab9c8ef14d60a02a0a94f8b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/198479
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Faller <jeremy@golang.org>
Now that OpSliceMake is called by runtime.makeslice callers,
prove can see and record the actual length and cap of each
slice being constructed.
This small patch is enough to remove 260 additional bound checks
from cmd+std.
Thanks to Martin Möhrmann for pointing me to CL141822 that
I had missed.
Updates #24660
Change-Id: I14556850f285392051f3f07d13b456b608b64eb9
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/196784
Run-TryBot: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes#26292.
Fixes#29964.
Fixes#15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
When branching at a bounds check for indexing or slicing ops, prove currently
only learns from the upper bound. On the positive branch, we currently learn
i < len(a) (or i <= len(a)) in both the signed and unsigned domains.
This CL makes prove also learn from the lower bound. Specifically, on the
positive branch from index or slicing ops, prove will now ALSO learn i >= 0 in
the signed domain (this fact is of no value in the unsigned domain).
The substantive change itself is only an additional call to addRestrictions,
though I've also inverted the nested switch statements around that call for the
sake of clarity.
This CL removes 92 bounds checks from std and cmd. It passes all tests and
shows no deltas on compilecmp.
Fixes#28885
Change-Id: I13eccc36e640eb599fa6dc5aa3be3c7d7abd2d9e
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/170121
Run-TryBot: Daniel Martí <mvdan@mvdan.cc>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
Would suggest extending capabilities (32-bit, unsigned, etc)
in separate CLs because prove bugs are so mystifying.
This implements the suggestion in this comment
https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/104041/10/src/cmd/compile/internal/ssa/loopbce.go#164
for inferring properly bounded iteration for loops of the form
for i := K0; i < KNN-(K-1); i += K
for i := K0; i <= KNN-K; i += K
Where KNN is "known non negative" (i.e., len or cap) and K
is also not negative. Because i <= KNN-K, i+K <= KNN and
no overflow occurs.
Also handles decreasing case (K1 > 0)
for i := KNN; i >= K0; i -= K1
which works when MININT+K1 < K0
(i.e. MININT < K0-K1, no overflow)
Signed only, also only 64 bit for now.
Change-Id: I5da6015aba2f781ec76c4ad59c9c48d952325fdc
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/136375
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Alexandru Moșoi <alexandru@mosoi.ro>
Prove currently fails to remove bounds checks of the form:
if i >= 0 { // hint that i is non-negative
for i < len(data) { // i becomes Phi in the loop SSA
_ = data[i] // data[Phi]; bounds check!!
i++
}
}
addIndVarRestrictions fails to identify that the loop induction
variable, (Phi), is non-negative. As a result, the restrictions,
i <= Phi < len(data), are only added for the signed domain. When
testing the bounds check, addBranchRestrictions is similarly unable
to infer that Phi is non-negative. As a result, the restriction,
Phi >= len(data), is only added/tested for the unsigned domain.
This CL changes the isNonNegative method to utilise the factTable's
partially ordered set (poset). It also adds field factTable.zero to
allow isNonNegative to query the poset using the zero(0) constant
found or created early in prove.
Fixes#28956
Change-Id: I792f886c652eeaa339b0d57d5faefbf5922fe44f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/161437
Run-TryBot: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
Turns out this makes the fix for 28797 unnecessary, because this order
ensures that the RHS of IsSliceInBounds ops are always nonnegative.
The real reason for this change is that it also makes dealing with
<0 values easier for reporting values in bounds check panics (issue #30116).
Makes cmd/go negligibly smaller.
Update #28797
Change-Id: I1f25ba6d2b3b3d4a72df3105828aa0a4b629ce85
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/166377
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
In the case of x+d >= w, where d and w are constants, we are
deriving x is within the bound of min=w-d and max=maxInt-d. When
there is an overflow (min >= max), we know only one of x >= min
or x <= max is true, and we derive this by excluding the other.
When excluding x >= min, we did not consider the equal case, so
we could incorrectly derive x <= max when x == min.
Fixes#29502.
Change-Id: Ia9f7d814264b1a3ddf78f52e2ce23377450e6e8a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/156019
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Instead of testing len(slice)+numNewElements > cap(slice) use
uint(len(slice)+numNewElements) > uint(cap(slice)) to test
if a slice needs to be grown in an append operation.
This prevents a possible overflow when len(slice) is near the maximum
int value and the addition of a constant number of new elements
makes it overflow and wrap around to a negative number which is
smaller than the capacity of the slice.
Appending a slice to a slice with append(s1, s2...) already used
a uint comparison to test slice capacity and therefore was not
vulnerable to the same overflow issue.
Fixes: #29190
Change-Id: I41733895838b4f80a44f827bf900ce931d8be5ca
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/154037
Run-TryBot: Martin Möhrmann <moehrmann@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
IsSliceInBounds(x, y) asserts that y is not negative, but
there were cases where this is not true. Change code
generation to ensure that this is true when it's not obviously
true. Prove phase cleans a few of these out.
With this change the compiler text section is 0.06% larger,
that is, not very much. Benchmarking still TBD, may need
to wait for access to a benchmarking box (next week).
Also corrected run.go to handle '?' in -update_errors output.
Fixes#28797.
Change-Id: Ia8af90bc50a91ae6e934ef973def8d3f398fac7b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/152477
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Fence-post implications of the form "x-1 >= w && x > min ⇒ x > w"
were not correctly handling unsigned domain, by always checking signed
limits.
This bug was uncovered once we taught prove that len(x) is always
>= 0 in the signed domain.
In the code being miscompiled (s[len(s)-1]), prove checks
whether len(s)-1 >= len(s) in the unsigned domain; if it proves
that this is always false, it can remove the bound check.
Notice that len(s)-1 >= len(s) can be true for len(s) = 0 because
of the wrap-around, so this is something prove should not be
able to deduce.
But because of the bug, the gate condition for the fence-post
implication was len(s) > MinInt64 instead of len(s) > 0; that
condition would be good in the signed domain but not in the
unsigned domain. And since in CL105635 we taught prove that
len(s) >= 0, the condition incorrectly triggered
(len(s) >= 0 > MinInt64) and things were going downfall.
Fixes#27251Fixes#27289
Change-Id: I3dbcb1955ac5a66a0dcbee500f41e8d219409be5
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/132495
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
We need to make sure that the terminating comparison has the right
sense given the increment direction. If the increment is positive,
the terminating comparsion must be < or <=. If the increment is
negative, the terminating comparison must be > or >=.
Do a few cleanups, like constant-folding entry==0, adding comments,
removing unused "exported" fields.
Fixes#26116
Change-Id: I14230ee8126054b750e2a1f2b18eb8f09873dbd5
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/121940
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Heschi Kreinick <heschi@google.com>
Currently, range loops over slices and arrays are compiled roughly
like:
for i, x := range s { b }
⇓
for i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]; i < _n; i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0]) { b }
⇓
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
goto cond
body:
{ b }
i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
cond:
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
end:
The problem with this lowering is that _p may temporarily point past
the end of the allocation the moment before the loop terminates. Right
now this isn't a problem because there's never a safe-point during
this brief moment.
We're about to introduce safe-points everywhere, so this bad pointer
is going to be a problem. We could mark the increment as an unsafe
block, but this inhibits reordering opportunities and could result in
infrequent safe-points if the body is short.
Instead, this CL fixes this by changing how we compile range loops to
never produce this past-the-end pointer. It changes the lowering to
roughly:
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
top:
_p += unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
body:
{ b }
i++
if i < _n { goto top } else { goto end }
end:
Notably, the increment is split into two parts: we increment the index
before checking the condition, but increment the pointer only *after*
the condition check has succeeded.
The implementation builds on the OFORUNTIL construct that was
introduced during the loop preemption experiments, since OFORUNTIL
places the increment and condition after the loop body. To support the
extra "late increment" step, we further define OFORUNTIL's "List"
field to contain the late increment statements. This makes all of this
a relatively small change.
This depends on the improvements to the prove pass in CL 102603. With
the current lowering, bounds-check elimination knows that i < _n in
the body because the body block is dominated by the cond block. In the
new lowering, deriving this fact requires detecting that i < _n on
*both* paths into body and hence is true in body. CL 102603 made prove
able to detect this.
The code size effect of this is minimal. The cmd/go binary on
linux/amd64 increases by 0.17%. Performance-wise, this actually
appears to be a net win, though it's mostly noise:
name old time/op new time/op delta
BinaryTree17-12 2.80s ± 0% 2.61s ± 1% -6.88% (p=0.000 n=20+18)
Fannkuch11-12 2.41s ± 0% 2.42s ± 0% +0.05% (p=0.005 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfEmpty-12 41.6ns ± 5% 41.4ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.765 n=20+19)
FmtFprintfString-12 69.4ns ± 3% 69.3ns ± 1% ~ (p=0.084 n=19+17)
FmtFprintfInt-12 76.1ns ± 1% 77.3ns ± 1% +1.57% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
FmtFprintfIntInt-12 122ns ± 2% 123ns ± 3% +0.95% (p=0.015 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfPrefixedInt-12 153ns ± 2% 151ns ± 3% -1.27% (p=0.013 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfFloat-12 215ns ± 0% 216ns ± 0% +0.47% (p=0.000 n=20+16)
FmtManyArgs-12 486ns ± 1% 498ns ± 0% +2.40% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
GobDecode-12 6.43ms ± 0% 6.50ms ± 0% +1.08% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
GobEncode-12 5.43ms ± 1% 5.47ms ± 0% +0.76% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Gzip-12 218ms ± 1% 218ms ± 1% ~ (p=0.883 n=20+20)
Gunzip-12 38.8ms ± 0% 38.9ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.644 n=19+19)
HTTPClientServer-12 76.2µs ± 1% 76.4µs ± 2% ~ (p=0.218 n=20+20)
JSONEncode-12 12.2ms ± 0% 12.3ms ± 1% +0.45% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
JSONDecode-12 54.2ms ± 1% 53.3ms ± 0% -1.67% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Mandelbrot200-12 3.71ms ± 0% 3.71ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.143 n=19+20)
GoParse-12 3.22ms ± 0% 3.19ms ± 1% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
RegexpMatchEasy0_32-12 76.7ns ± 1% 75.8ns ± 1% -1.19% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
RegexpMatchEasy0_1K-12 245ns ± 1% 243ns ± 0% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=18+17)
RegexpMatchEasy1_32-12 71.9ns ± 0% 71.7ns ± 1% -0.39% (p=0.006 n=12+18)
RegexpMatchEasy1_1K-12 358ns ± 1% 354ns ± 1% -1.13% (p=0.000 n=20+19)
RegexpMatchMedium_32-12 105ns ± 2% 105ns ± 1% -0.63% (p=0.007 n=19+20)
RegexpMatchMedium_1K-12 31.9µs ± 1% 31.9µs ± 1% ~ (p=1.000 n=17+17)
RegexpMatchHard_32-12 1.51µs ± 1% 1.52µs ± 2% +0.46% (p=0.042 n=18+18)
RegexpMatchHard_1K-12 45.3µs ± 1% 45.5µs ± 2% +0.44% (p=0.029 n=18+19)
Revcomp-12 388ms ± 1% 385ms ± 0% -0.57% (p=0.000 n=19+18)
Template-12 63.0ms ± 1% 63.3ms ± 0% +0.50% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
TimeParse-12 309ns ± 1% 307ns ± 0% -0.62% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
TimeFormat-12 328ns ± 0% 333ns ± 0% +1.35% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
[Geo mean] 47.0µs 46.9µs -0.20%
(https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20180326.1)
For #10958.
For #24543.
Change-Id: Icbd52e711fdbe7938a1fea3e6baca1104b53ac3a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/102604
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Currently, we compile range loops into for loops with the obvious
initialization and update of the index variable. In this form, the
prove pass can see that the body is dominated by an i < len condition,
and findIndVar can detect that i is an induction variable and that
0 <= i < len.
GOEXPERIMENT=preemptibleloops compiles range loops to OFORUNTIL and
we're preparing to unconditionally switch to a variation of this for
#24543. OFORUNTIL moves the increment and condition *after* the body,
which makes the bounds on the index variable much less obvious. With
OFORUNTIL, proving anything about the index variable requires
understanding the phi that joins the index values at the top of the
loop body block.
This interferes with both prove's ability to see that i < len (this is
true on both paths that enter the body, but from two different
conditional checks) and with findIndVar's ability to detect the
induction pattern.
Fix this by teaching prove to detect that the index in the pattern
constructed by OFORUNTIL is an induction variable and add both bounds
to the facts table. Currently this is done separately from findIndVar
because it depends on prove's factsTable, while findIndVar runs before
visiting blocks and building the factsTable.
Without any GOEXPERIMENT, this has no effect on std or cmd. However,
with GOEXPERIMENT=preemptibleloops, this change becomes necessary to
prove 90 conditions in std and cmd.
Change-Id: Ic025d669f81b53426309da5a6e8010e5ccaf4f49
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/102603
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
When a loop has bound len(s)-delta, findIndVar detected it and
returned len(s) as (conservative) upper bound. This little lie
allowed loopbce to drop bound checks.
It is obviously more generic to teach prove about relations like
x+d<w for non-constant "w"; we already handled the case for
constant "w", so we just want to learn that if d<0, then x+d<w
proves that x<w.
To be able to remove the code from findIndVar, we also need
to teach prove that len() and cap() are always non-negative.
This CL allows to prove 633 more checks in cmd+std. Most
of them are cases where the code was already testing before
accessing a slice but the compiler didn't know it. For instance,
take strings.HasSuffix:
func HasSuffix(s, suffix string) bool {
return len(s) >= len(suffix) && s[len(s)-len(suffix):] == suffix
}
When suffix is a literal string, the compiler now understands
that the explicit check is enough to not emit a slice check.
I also found a loopbce test that was incorrectly
written to detect an overflow but had a off-by-one (on the
conservative side), so it unexpectly passed with this CL; I
changed it to really trigger the overflow as intended.
Change-Id: Ib5abade337db46b8811425afebad4719b6e46c4a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/105635
Run-TryBot: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Test both minimum and maximum bound, and prepare
formatting for more advanced tests (inclusive / esclusive bounds).
Change-Id: Ibe432916d9c938343bc07943798bc9709ad71845
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/104040
Run-TryBot: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
Reuse findIndVar to discover induction variables, and then
register the facts we know about them into the facts table
when entering the loop block.
Moreover, handle "x+delta > w" while updating the facts table,
to be able to prove accesses to slices with constant offsets
such as slice[i-10].
Change-Id: I2a63d050ed58258136d54712ac7015b25c893d71
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/104038
Run-TryBot: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
When a branch is followed, we apply the relation as described
in the domain relation table. In case the relation is in the
positive domain, we can also infer an unsigned relation if,
by that point, we know that both operands are non-negative.
Fixes#20393
Change-Id: Ieaf0c81558b36d96616abae3eb834c788dd278d5
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/100278
Run-TryBot: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
The logic in addBranchRestrictions didn't allow to correctly
model OpIs(Slice)Bound for signed domain, and it was also partly
implemented within addRestrictions.
Thanks to the previous changes, it is now possible to handle
the negative conditions correctly, so that we can learn
both signed/LT + unsigned/LT on the positive side, and
signed/GE + unsigned/GE on the negative side (but only if
the index can be proved to be non-negative).
This is able to prove ~50 more slice accesses in std+cmd.
Change-Id: I9858080dc03b16f85993a55983dbc4b00f8491b0
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/104037
Run-TryBot: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
This adds four new deductions to the prove pass, all related to adding
or subtracting one from a value. This is the first hint of actual
arithmetic relations in the prove pass.
The most effective of these is
x-1 >= w && x > min ⇒ x > w
This helps eliminate bounds checks in code like
if x > 0 {
// do something with s[x-1]
}
Altogether, these deductions prove an additional 260 branches in std
and cmd. Furthermore, they will let us eliminate some tricky
compiler-inserted panics in the runtime that are interfering with
static analysis.
Fixes#23354.
Change-Id: I7088223e0e0cd6ff062a75c127eb4bb60e6dce02
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87480
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Alexandru Moșoi <alexandru@mosoi.ro>
This adds a few simple deductions to the prove pass' fact table to
derive unsigned concrete limits from signed concrete limits where
possible.
This tweak lets the pass prove 70 additional branch conditions in std
and cmd.
This is based on a comment from the recently-deleted factsTable.get:
"// TODO: also use signed data if lim.min >= 0".
Change-Id: Ib4340249e7733070f004a0aa31254adf5df8a392
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87479
Reviewed-by: Alexandru Moșoi <alexandru@mosoi.ro>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Currently we expand comparison with small constant strings into len check
and a sequence of byte comparisons. Generate 16/32/64-bit comparisons,
instead of bytewise on 386 and amd64. Also increase limits on what is
considered small constant string.
Shaves ~30kb (0.5%) from go executable.
This also updates test/prove.go to keep test case valid.
Change-Id: I99ae8871a1d00c96363c6d03d0b890782fa7e1d9
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/38776
Run-TryBot: Ilya Tocar <ilya.tocar@intel.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
When we discover a relation x <= len(s), also discover the relation
x <= cap(s). That way, in situations like:
a := s[x:] // tests 0 <= x <= len(s)
b := s[:x] // tests 0 <= x <= cap(s)
the second check can be eliminated.
Fixes#16813
Change-Id: Ifc037920b6955e43bac1a1eaf6bac63a89cfbd44
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/33633
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Alexandru Moșoi <alexandru@mosoi.ro>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
CSE opportunities were being missed for commutative ops. We used to
order the args of commutative ops (by arg ID) once at the start of CSE.
But that may not be enough.
i1 = (Load ptr mem)
i2 = (Load ptr mem)
x1 = (Add i1 j)
x2 = (Add i2 j)
Equivalent commutative ops x1 and x2 may not get their args ordered in
the same way because because at the start of CSE, we don't know that
the i values will be CSEd. If x1 and x2 get opposite orders we won't
CSE them.
Instead, (re)order the args of commutative operations by their
equivalence class IDs each time we partition an equivalence class.
Change-Id: Ic609fa83b85299782a5e85bf93dc6023fccf4b0c
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/33632
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Todd Neal <todd@tneal.org>
Adapt old test for prove's bounds check elimination.
Added missing rule to generic rules that lead to differences
between 32 and 64 bit platforms on sliceopt test.
Added debugging to prove.go that was helpful-to-necessary to
discover that missing rule.
Lowered debugging level on prove.go from 3 to 1; no idea
why it was previously 3.
Change-Id: I09de206aeb2fced9f2796efe2bfd4a59927eda0c
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/23290
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Unroll s == "ab" to
len(s) == 2 && s[0] == 'a' && s[1] == 'b'
This generates faster and shorter code
by avoiding a runtime call.
Do something similar for !=.
The cutoff length is 6. This was chosen empirically
by examining binary sizes on arm, arm64, 386, and amd64
using the SSA backend.
For all architectures examined, 4, 5, and 6 were
the ideal cutoff, with identical binary sizes.
The distribution of constant string equality sizes
during 'go build -a std' is:
40.81% 622 len 0
14.11% 215 len 4
9.45% 144 len 1
7.81% 119 len 3
7.48% 114 len 5
5.12% 78 len 7
4.13% 63 len 2
3.54% 54 len 8
2.69% 41 len 6
1.18% 18 len 10
0.85% 13 len 9
0.66% 10 len 14
0.59% 9 len 17
0.46% 7 len 11
0.26% 4 len 12
0.20% 3 len 19
0.13% 2 len 13
0.13% 2 len 15
0.13% 2 len 16
0.07% 1 len 20
0.07% 1 len 23
0.07% 1 len 33
0.07% 1 len 36
A cutoff of length 6 covers most of the cases.
Benchmarks on amd64 comparing a string to a constant of length 3:
Cmp/1same-8 4.78ns ± 6% 0.94ns ± 9% -80.26% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Cmp/1diffbytes-8 6.43ns ± 6% 0.96ns ±11% -85.13% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Cmp/3same-8 4.71ns ± 5% 1.28ns ± 5% -72.90% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Cmp/3difffirstbyte-8 6.33ns ± 7% 1.27ns ± 7% -79.90% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Cmp/3difflastbyte-8 6.34ns ± 8% 1.26ns ± 9% -80.13% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
The change to the prove test preserves the
existing intent of the test. When the string was
short, there was a new "proved in bounds" report
that referred to individual byte comparisons.
Change-Id: I593ac303b0d11f275672090c5c786ea0c6b8da13
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/26758
Run-TryBot: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
func f(a, b bool) bool {
return a || b
}
is now a single instructions (excluding loading and unloading the arguments):
v10 = ORB <bool> v11 v12 : AX
Change-Id: Iff63399410cb46909f4318ea1c3f45a029f4aa5e
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/21872
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
Handle this case:
if 0 <= i && i < len(a) {
use a[i]
}
Shaves about 5k from pkg/tools/linux_amd64/*.
Change-Id: I6675ff49aa306b0d241b074c5738e448204cd981
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/21431
Run-TryBot: Alexandru Moșoi <alexandru@mosoi.ro>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
There are 5293 loop in the main go repository.
A survey of the top most common for loops:
18 for __k__ := 0; i < len(sa.Addr); i++ {
19 for __k__ := 0; ; i++ {
19 for __k__ := 0; i < 16; i++ {
25 for __k__ := 0; i < length; i++ {
30 for __k__ := 0; i < 8; i++ {
49 for __k__ := 0; i < len(s); i++ {
67 for __k__ := 0; i < n; i++ {
376 for __k__ := range __slice__ {
685 for __k__, __v__ := range __slice__ {
2074 for __, __v__ := range __slice__ {
The algorithm to find induction variables handles all cases
with an upper limit. It currently doesn't find related induction
variables such as c * ind or c + ind.
842 out of 22954 bound checks are removed for src/make.bash.
1957 out of 42952 bounds checks are removed for src/all.bash.
Things to do in follow-up CLs:
* Find the associated pointer for `for _, v := range a {}`
* Drop the NilChecks on the pointer.
* Replace the implicit induction variable by a loop over the pointer
Generated garbage can be reduced if we share the sdom between passes.
% benchstat old.txt new.txt
name old time/op new time/op delta
Template 337ms ± 3% 333ms ± 3% ~ (p=0.258 n=9+9)
GoTypes 1.11s ± 2% 1.10s ± 2% ~ (p=0.912 n=10+10)
Compiler 5.25s ± 1% 5.29s ± 2% ~ (p=0.077 n=9+9)
MakeBash 33.5s ± 1% 34.1s ± 2% +1.85% (p=0.011 n=9+9)
name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta
Template 63.6MB ± 0% 63.9MB ± 0% +0.52% (p=0.000 n=10+9)
GoTypes 218MB ± 0% 219MB ± 0% +0.59% (p=0.000 n=10+9)
Compiler 978MB ± 0% 985MB ± 0% +0.69% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta
Template 582k ± 0% 583k ± 0% +0.10% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
GoTypes 1.78M ± 0% 1.78M ± 0% +0.12% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
Compiler 7.68M ± 0% 7.69M ± 0% +0.05% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
name old text-bytes new text-bytes delta
HelloSize 581k ± 0% 581k ± 0% -0.08% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
CmdGoSize 6.40M ± 0% 6.39M ± 0% -0.08% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
name old data-bytes new data-bytes delta
HelloSize 3.66k ± 0% 3.66k ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
CmdGoSize 134k ± 0% 134k ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
name old bss-bytes new bss-bytes delta
HelloSize 126k ± 0% 126k ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
CmdGoSize 149k ± 0% 149k ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
name old exe-bytes new exe-bytes delta
HelloSize 947k ± 0% 946k ± 0% -0.01% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
CmdGoSize 9.92M ± 0% 9.91M ± 0% -0.06% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
Change-Id: Ie74bdff46fd602db41bb457333d3a762a0c3dc4d
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20517
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Run-TryBot: Alexandru Moșoi <alexandru@mosoi.ro>
Find comparisons to constants and propagate that information
down the dominator tree. Use it to resolve other constant
comparisons on the same variable.
So if we know x >= 7, then a x > 4 condition must return true.
This change allows us to use "_ = b[7]" hints to eliminate bounds checks.
Fixes#14900
Change-Id: Idbf230bd5b7da43de3ecb48706e21cf01bf812f7
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/21008
Reviewed-by: Alexandru Moșoi <alexandru@mosoi.ro>
* Refacts a bit saving and restoring parents restrictions
* Shaves ~100k from pkg/tools/linux_amd64,
but most of the savings come from the rewrite rules.
* Improves on the following artificial test case:
func f1(a4 bool, a6 bool) bool {
return a6 || (a6 || (a6 || a4)) || (a6 || (a4 || a6 || (false || a6)))
}
Change-Id: I714000f75a37a3a6617c6e6834c75bd23674215f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20306
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Alexandru Moșoi <alexandru@mosoi.ro>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
* It does very simple bounds checking elimination. E.g.
removes the second check in for i := range a { a[i]++; a[i++]; }
* Improves on the following redundant expression:
return a6 || (a6 || (a6 || a4)) || (a6 || (a4 || a6 || (false || a6)))
* Linear in the number of block edges.
I patched in CL 12960 that does bounds, nil and constant propagation
to make sure this CL is not just redundant. Size of pkg/tool/linux_amd64/*
(excluding compile which is affected by this change):
With IsInBounds and IsSliceInBounds
-this -12960 92285080
+this -12960 91947416
-this +12960 91978976
+this +12960 91923088
Gain is ~110% of 12960.
Without IsInBounds and IsSliceInBounds (older run)
-this -12960 95515512
+this -12960 95492536
-this +12960 95216920
+this +12960 95204440
Shaves 22k on its own.
* Can we handle IsInBounds better with this? In
for i := range a { a[i]++; } the bounds checking at a[i]
is not eliminated.
Change-Id: I98957427399145fb33693173fd4d5a8d71c7cc20
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/19710
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Alexandru Moșoi <alexandru@mosoi.ro>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
