| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
* bjorn/erts/fix-wrong-class/ERIERL-367/OTP-15834:
Fix sticky class in exception
|
|
When catching an exception re-throwing with a changed
class, the class could be changed to the original class
if the exception got caught and rethrown in (for example)
an after block:
sticky_class() ->
try
try
throw(reason)
catch
throw:Reason:Stack ->
erlang:raise(error, Reason, Stack)
end
after
ok
end.
|
|
Make sure that the instruction pointer is correct for a garbing
process in a crash dump.
|
|
Introduce move_src_window[234] instructions for moving several
consecutively numbered Y registers to discontiguously numbered X
registers. This optimization is effective because the compiler has
sorted the `move` instructions in Y register order.
|
|
move_dup is used very infrequently.
|
|
With the new compiler, it has become less common with a
move to x(0) before a jump. Change the move_jump instruction
to take a destination as well as a source.
|
|
It is relatively common to move something from a Y register to
an X register before trimming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The is_nonempty_list test is very frequently followed by
get_tl, and frequently followed by get_hd.
|
|
It turns out that the combination of is_nonempty_list
and test_heap is no longer frequent.
|
|
|
|
The test_arity instruction is often followed by get_tuple_element.
|
|
|
|
The is_function2 instruction is executed surprisingly
frequently when running dialyzer or the compiler. It
cannot hurt to optimize it a little.
|
|
Dispatching a function and return never use the next instruction.
It's unlikely for raw_raise to use the next instruction.
|
|
Sometimes when building a tuple, there is no way to avoid an
extra `move` instruction. Consider this code:
make_tuple(A) -> {ok,A}.
The corresponding BEAM code looks like this:
{test_heap,3,1}.
{put_tuple,2,{x,1}}.
{put,{atom,ok}}.
{put,{x,0}}.
{move,{x,1},{x,0}}.
return.
To avoid overwriting the source register `{x,0}`, a `move`
instruction is necessary.
The problem doesn't exist when building a list:
%% build_list(A) -> [A].
{test_heap,2,1}.
{put_list,{x,0},nil,{x,0}}.
return.
Introduce a new `put_tuple2` instruction that builds a tuple in a
single instruction, so that the `move` instruction can be eliminated:
%% make_tuple(A) -> {ok,A}.
{test_heap,3,1}.
{put_tuple2,{x,0},{list,[{atom,ok},{x,0}]}}.
return.
Note that the BEAM loader already combines `put_tuple` and `put`
instructions into an internal instruction similar to `put_tuple2`.
Therefore the introduction of the new instruction will not speed up
execution of tuple building itself, but it will be less work for
the loader to load the new instruction.
|
|
|
|
Instructions that produce more than one result complicate
optimizations. get_list/3 is one of two instructions that
produce multiple results (get_map_elements/3 is the other).
Introduce the get_hd/2 and get_tl/2 instructions
that return the head and tail of a cons cell, respectively,
and use it internally in all optimization passes.
For efficiency, we still want to use get_list/3 if both
head and tail are used, so we will translate matching pairs
of get_hd and get_tl back to get_list instructions.
|
|
Consider the following function:
function({function,Name,Arity,CLabel,Is0}, Lc0) ->
try
%% Optimize the code for the function.
catch
Class:Error:Stack ->
io:format("Function: ~w/~w\n", [Name,Arity]),
erlang:raise(Class, Error, Stack)
end.
The stacktrace is retrieved, but it is only used in the call
to erlang:raise/3. There is no need to build a stacktrace
in this function. We can avoid the building if we introduce
an instruction called raw_raise/3 that works exactly like
the erlang:raise/3 BIF except that its third argument must
be a raw stacktrace.
|
|
Add syntax in try/catch to retrieve the stacktrace directly
|
|
This commit adds a new syntax for retrieving the stacktrace
without calling erlang:get_stacktrace/0. That allow us to
deprecate erlang:get_stacktrace/0 and ultimately remove it.
The problem with erlang:get_stacktrace/0 is that it can keep huge
terms in a process for an indefinite time after an exception. The
stacktrace can be huge after a 'function_clause' exception or a failed
call to a BIF or operator, because the arguments for the call will be
included in the stacktrace. For example:
1> catch abs(lists:seq(1, 1000)).
{'EXIT',{badarg,[{erlang,abs,
[[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20|...]],
[]},
{erl_eval,do_apply,6,[{file,"erl_eval.erl"},{line,674}]},
{erl_eval,expr,5,[{file,"erl_eval.erl"},{line,431}]},
{shell,exprs,7,[{file,"shell.erl"},{line,687}]},
{shell,eval_exprs,7,[{file,"shell.erl"},{line,642}]},
{shell,eval_loop,3,[{file,"shell.erl"},{line,627}]}]}}
2> erlang:get_stacktrace().
[{erlang,abs,
[[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,
23,24|...]],
[]},
{erl_eval,do_apply,6,[{file,"erl_eval.erl"},{line,674}]},
{erl_eval,expr,5,[{file,"erl_eval.erl"},{line,431}]},
{shell,exprs,7,[{file,"shell.erl"},{line,687}]},
{shell,eval_exprs,7,[{file,"shell.erl"},{line,642}]},
{shell,eval_loop,3,[{file,"shell.erl"},{line,627}]}]
3>
We can extend the syntax for clauses in try/catch to optionally bind
the stacktrace to a variable.
Here is an example using the current syntax:
try
Expr
catch C:E ->
Stk = erlang:get_stacktrace(),
.
.
.
In the new syntax, it would look like:
try
Expr
catch
C:E:Stk ->
.
.
.
Only a variable (not a pattern) is allowed in the stacktrace position,
to discourage matching of the stacktrace. (Matching would also be
expensive, because the raw format of the stacktrace would have to be
converted to the cooked form before matching.)
Note that:
try
Expr
catch E ->
.
.
.
is a shorthand for:
try
Expr
catch throw:E ->
.
.
.
If the stacktrace is to be retrieved for a throw, the 'throw:'
prefix must be explicitly included:
try
Expr
catch throw:E:Stk ->
.
.
.
|
|
X register 0 used to be mapped to a hardware register, and therefore
faster than the other registers. Because of that, the compiler
tried to use x(0) as much as possible as a temporary register.
That was changed a few releases ago. X register 0 is now placed
in the array of all X registers and has no special speed
advantage compared to the other registers.
Remove the code in the compiler that attempts to use x(0) as
much as possible. As a result, the following type of instruction
will be much less frequent:
{put_list,Src,{x,0},{x,0}}
Instead, the following type of instruction will be more frequent:
{put_list,Src,{x,X},{x,X}}
(Where X is an arbitrary X register.)
Update the runtime system to specialize that kind of put_list
instruction.
|
|
We can avoid calling eq() from the is_eq_exact_literal/3
and is_ne_exact_literal/3 instructions if the source operand is
an immediate (since a literal is either a boxed or a list, never
an immediate).
|
|
The try_end and try_case instructions are implemented the same way
(try_case is translated to try_end by the loader).
We can do better than that. We know that try_case will only be executed
when an exception has been caught. Therefore, we know that x(0) is
the non-value and that x(1) through x(3) need to be shifted down to
x(0) through x(2). There is no need to test x(0) before shifting down.
try_end does not need the register shifting code at all.
|
|
Move out from the head the variables that are only used in the excute
phase.
|
|
|
|
Introduce new macros that can be used for relative jumps and
use them consistently.
Test that everything works by using a non-zero constant JUMP_OFFSET.
The loader subtracts JUMP_OFFSET from loaded labels, and all
instructions that use 'f' operands add it back.
|
|
The C compiler will probably optimize this, but just to be sure...
|
|
It's bad style. Pass the name of the variable as an
extra argument to the macro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We don't need to pass x(0), x(1), and x(2) because they
can already be found in the register array.
|
|
In a correct Erlang programs, we can expect that:
* A GC test instruction (such as test_heap) is more likely
not to do the GC.
* A BIF is more likely to succeed than to fail.
* A BIF is more likely to fail in a guard than in a body.
* An apply or fun call is likely to succeed.
Annotate conditions accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eliminate the need to write pre-processor macros for each instruction.
Instead allow the implementation of instruction to be written in
C directly in the .tab files. Rewrite all existing macros in this
way and remove the %macro directive.
|
