• Michael V. Franklin (69/69) Nov 09 2017 I'm currently testing the optimization for the proposed lowering
• David Nadlinger (6/8) Nov 09 2017 I think these are just the getter and setter implementation
• Johannes Pfau (20/28) Nov 11 2017 This is indeed just a bug in the compiler explorer. Disable the 'Remove

Michael V. Franklin <slavo5150 yahoo.com> writes:

I'm currently testing the optimization for the proposed lowering 
in this upcoming DIP: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/97

Tested at https://explore.dgnu.org/ (love this tool, by the way) 
64-bit (PC) gdc 7 with -O3 -frelease

/********** Lowering expression to lambda *************/
import core.bitop;

struct S
{
     uint field;

     uint prop()  property
     {
         return field;
     }

     uint prop(uint value)  property
     {
         return field = value;
     }
}

void main()
{
     S s;
     ((auto ref _e1) => _e1.prop(_e1.prop() + 1))(s);

     // prevent compiler from optimizing the whole thing away
     volatileStore(cast(uint*)32, s.field);
}

// OUTPUT
main:
         movq    _Dmain GOTPCREL(%rip), %rdx
         jmp     _d_run_main PLT
         movl    (%rdi), %eax
         ret
         movl    %esi, %eax
         movl    %esi, (%rdi)
         ret
_Dmain:
         movl    $1, 32
         xorl    %eax, %eax
         ret
uint example.main().__lambda1!(example.S).__lambda1(ref 
example.S):
         movl    (%rdi), %eax
         addl    $1, %eax
         movl    %eax, (%rdi)
         ret

/****** Functionally equivalent code without lowering ***********/
import core.bitop;

struct S
{
     uint field;
}

void main()
{
     S s;
     s.field += 1;

     // prevent compiler from optimizing the whole thing away
     volatileStore(cast(uint*)32, s.field);
}

// OUTPUT
main:
         movq    _Dmain GOTPCREL(%rip), %rdx
         jmp     _d_run_main PLT
_Dmain:
         movl    $1, 32
         xorl    %eax, %eax
         ret

-- Analysis --
`_Dmain` is equivalent, as I expected, but what's going on with 
`main`?  Anything to be concerned about?

Mike

David Nadlinger <code klickverbot.at> writes:

On Friday, 10 November 2017 at 02:26:46 UTC, Michael V. Franklin 
wrote:
 `_Dmain` is equivalent, as I expected, but what's going on with 
 `main`?  Anything to be concerned about?

I think these are just the getter and setter implementation 
bodies. (Note that main ends with an unconditional jmp to 
_d_run_main.) No idea why the symbol labels aren't shown.

  — David

Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:

Am Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:33:41 +0000
schrieb David Nadlinger <code klickverbot.at>:

 On Friday, 10 November 2017 at 02:26:46 UTC, Michael V. Franklin 
 wrote:
 `_Dmain` is equivalent, as I expected, but what's going on with 
 `main`?  Anything to be concerned about?  

 
 I think these are just the getter and setter implementation 
 bodies. (Note that main ends with an unconditional jmp to 
 _d_run_main.) No idea why the symbol labels aren't shown.

This is indeed just a bug in the compiler explorer. Disable the 'Remove
all lines which are only comments' option and you'll get this:

main:
        mov     rdx, QWORD PTR _Dmain GOTPCREL[rip]
        jmp     _d_run_main PLT
 property uint example.S.prop():
        mov     eax, DWORD PTR [rdi]
        ret
 property uint example.S.prop(uint):
        mov     eax, esi
        mov     DWORD PTR [rdi], esi
        ret
_Dmain:
...

One thing we could improve though is to not emit the lambda as a
separate function, as it can never be called anyway (the only possible
call is inlined).

-- Johannes