Use getblockparamproxy when branching #6286
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
A common pattern when the block is an explicit parameter is to branch
based on the block parameter instead of using `block_given?`, for
example `block.call if block`.
This commit checks in the peephole optimizer for that case and uses the
getblockparamproxy optimization, which avoids allocating a proc for
simple cases, whenever a getblockparam instruction is followed
immediately by branchif or branchunless.
./miniruby --dump=insns -e 'def foo(&block); 123 if block; end'
== disasm: #<ISeq:foo@-e:1 (1,0)-(1,34)> (catch: FALSE)
local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1])
[ 1] block@0<Block>
0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 1)[LiCa]
0003 branchunless 8
0005 putobject 123
0007 leave [Re]
0008 putnil
0009 leave [Re]
|
❤️, this is indeed a very frequent pattern. |
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to casperisfine/set
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (ruby/ruby#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ```
matzbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ``` ruby/set@e89da977d4
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to Shopify/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (ruby#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ``` ruby/set@e89da977d4
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to Shopify/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (ruby#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ``` ruby/set@e89da977d4
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to Shopify/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 9, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (ruby#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ``` ruby/set@e89da977d4
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to Shopify/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 23, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (ruby#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ``` ruby/set@e89da977d4
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to Shopify/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (ruby#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ``` ruby/set@e89da977d4
jhawthorn
pushed a commit
to github/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (ruby#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ``` ruby/set@e89da977d4
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to Shopify/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (ruby#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ``` ruby/set@e89da977d4
jhawthorn
pushed a commit
to github/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 28, 2023
Using the block param in a boolean context like this cause it to be allocated. Using it with an `if` or `unless` was optimized in 3.2 (ruby#6286) but using it with `or` or `and` wasn't. ```ruby def foo(&block) block or return 1 end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):11 (11,0)-(13,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparam block@0, 0 ( 12)[LiCa] 0003 dup 0004 branchif 10 0006 pop 0007 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0008 leave [Re] 0009 putnil 0010 leave ``` versus ``` def foo(&block) return 1 if block end puts RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of(method(:foo)).disasm == disasm: #<ISeq:foo@(irb):15 (15,0)-(17,3)> (catch: false) local table (size: 1, argc: 0 [opts: 0, rest: -1, post: 0, block: 0, kw: -1@-1, kwrest: -1]) [ 1] block@0<Block> 0000 getblockparamproxy block@0, 0 ( 16)[LiCa] 0003 branchunless 7 0005 putobject_INT2FIX_1_ 0006 leave ( 17)[Re] 0007 putnil ( 16) 0008 leave ``` ruby/set@e89da977d4
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A common pattern when the block is an explicit parameter is to branch based on the block parameter instead of using
block_given?, for exampleblock.call if block.This commit checks in the peephole optimizer for that case and uses the getblockparamproxy optimization, which avoids allocating a proc for simple cases, whenever a getblockparam instruction is followed immediately by branchif or branchunless.
@matthewd spotted this while we were implementing #6191