This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 23, 2023. It is now read-only.
[mscorlib] Prefer using Array.Length as upper for loop limit#8923
Merged
danmoseley merged 1 commit intodotnet:masterfrom Jan 12, 2017
Merged
[mscorlib] Prefer using Array.Length as upper for loop limit#8923danmoseley merged 1 commit intodotnet:masterfrom
danmoseley merged 1 commit intodotnet:masterfrom
Conversation
The JIT can't eliminate range checks if it can't "see" Length and uses loop cloning which generates a lot of code. Even in cases where not all range checks can be eliminated and loop cloning is used anyway it's still preferable to have fewer range checks. For example, SortExceptions is ~140 bytes shorter after this change, despite the fact that loop cloning is still being used.
14aaba0 to
adbcc28
Compare
danmoseley
approved these changes
Jan 12, 2017
mikedn
added a commit
to mikedn/corert
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2017
jkotas
pushed a commit
to dotnet/corert
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2017
manofstick
pushed a commit
to manofstick/coreclr
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2017
The JIT can't eliminate range checks if it can't "see" Length and uses loop cloning which generates a lot of code. Even in cases where not all range checks can be eliminated and loop cloning is used anyway it's still preferable to have fewer range checks. For example, SortExceptions is ~140 bytes shorter after this change, despite the fact that loop cloning is still being used.
picenka21
pushed a commit
to picenka21/runtime
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 18, 2022
The JIT can't eliminate range checks if it can't "see" Length and uses loop cloning which generates a lot of code. Even in cases where not all range checks can be eliminated and loop cloning is used anyway it's still preferable to have fewer range checks. For example, SortExceptions is ~140 bytes shorter after this change, despite the fact that loop cloning is still being used. Commit migrated from dotnet/coreclr@01a9eaa
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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 participants
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.
The JIT can't eliminate range checks if it can't "see"
Lengthand uses loop cloning which generates a lot of code. Even in cases where not all range checks can be eliminated and loop cloning is used anyway it's still preferable to have fewer range checks.For example, SortExceptions is ~140 bytes shorter after this change, despite the fact that loop cloning is still being used.