On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Chris Rackauckas <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It seems like a closure on a non bitstype still has issues, or is there
> something wrong with doing this?
>
> immutable Params
> α::Float64
> end
>
> function test()
> h = (t,u,du,p) -> @inbounds begin
> du[1] = 1.01u[1]
> du[2] = p.α*u[2]
> end
> h2 = (t,u,du) -> @inbounds begin
> du[1] = 1.01u[1]
> du[2] = 1.0*u[2]
> end
> const u = [0.1,0.2]
> const du = zeros(2)
> const p = Params(1.0)
> l = (t,u,du) -> h(t,u,du,p)
> println("Pass In Parameters")
> @code_native h(1.0,u,du,p)
> println("No Parameters")
> @code_native h2(1.0,u,du)
> println("Closures")
> @code_native l(1.0,u,du)
> end
> test()
>
> Pass In Parameters
> .text
> Filename: replacement_macros_tests.jl
> pushq %rbp
> movq %rsp, %rbp
> Source line: 29
> movq (%rdi), %rax
> movsd (%rax), %xmm0 # xmm0 = mem[0],zero
> movabsq $140006850762016, %rcx # imm = 0x7F55E29B1520
> mulsd (%rcx), %xmm0
> movq (%rsi), %rcx
> movsd %xmm0, (%rcx)
> Source line: 30
> movsd (%rdx), %xmm0 # xmm0 = mem[0],zero
> mulsd 8(%rax), %xmm0
> movsd %xmm0, 8(%rcx)
> popq %rbp
> retq
>
> No Parameters
> .text
> Filename: replacement_macros_tests.jl
> pushq %rbp
> movq %rsp, %rbp
> Source line: 33
> movq (%rdi), %rax
> movsd (%rax), %xmm0 # xmm0 = mem[0],zero
> movabsq $140006850762144, %rcx # imm = 0x7F55E29B15A0
> mulsd (%rcx), %xmm0
> movq (%rsi), %rcx
> movsd %xmm0, (%rcx)
> Source line: 34
> movq 8(%rax), %rax
> movq %rax, 8(%rcx)
> popq %rbp
> retq
> nopw (%rax,%rax)
>
>
> Closures
> .text
> Filename: replacement_macros_tests.jl
> pushq %rbp
> movq %rsp, %rbp
> pushq %r15
> pushq %r14
> pushq %r13
> pushq %r12
> pushq %rbx
> subq $72, %rsp
> movq %rdx, %r14
> movq %rsi, %r15
> movsd %xmm0, -112(%rbp)
> movabsq $140007647692112, %rbx # imm = 0x7F56121B4550
> movq %fs:0, %r12
> addq $-2672, %r12 # imm = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFF590
> xorpd %xmm0, %xmm0
> movupd %xmm0, -64(%rbp)
> movupd %xmm0, -80(%rbp)
> movq $0, -48(%rbp)
> movq $12, -104(%rbp)
> movq (%r12), %rax
> movq %rax, -96(%rbp)
> leaq -104(%rbp), %rax
> movq %rax, (%r12)
> movq $0, -88(%rbp)
> Source line: 39
> movq (%rdi), %rax
> movq (%rax), %r13
> testq %r13, %r13
> je L232
> movq %r13, -88(%rbp)
> movq %rbx, -80(%rbp)
> movabsq $jl_gc_pool_alloc, %rax
> movl $1432, %esi # imm = 0x598
> movl $16, %edx
> movq %r12, %rdi
> callq *%rax
> addq $1072064, %rbx # imm = 0x105BC0
> movq %rbx, -8(%rax)
> movsd -112(%rbp), %xmm0 # xmm0 = mem[0],zero
> movsd %xmm0, (%rax)
> movq %rax, -72(%rbp)
> movq %r15, -64(%rbp)
> movq %r14, -56(%rbp)
> movq %r13, -48(%rbp)
> movabsq $jl_apply_generic, %rax
> movl $5, %esi
> leaq -80(%rbp), %rdi
> callq *%rax
> movq -96(%rbp), %rax
> movq %rax, (%r12)
> addq $72, %rsp
> popq %rbx
> popq %r12
> popq %r13
> popq %r14
> popq %r15
> popq %rbp
> retq
> L232:
> addq $1448, %rbx # imm = 0x5A8
> movabsq $jl_throw, %rax
> movq %rbx, %rdi
> callq *%rax
> nop
>
>
> Clearly the 3rd method (using a closure on a parameter type) has a lot
> more steps. My untrained eye says that means it's bad... is that simple
> analysis wrong?
>
>
The issue is https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/15276 See
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/17395#issuecomment-241911387 for
a workaround that works for me most of the time.
