[emval] Reuse method calling optimisation in regular calls #20383
Conversation
This file contains 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
brendandahl
requested changes
Oct 17, 2023
| @@ -509,16 +480,28 @@ class val { | |||
| return internal::_emval_delete(as_handle(), val_ref(property).as_handle()); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| template<typename... Args> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to keep all variants / usages of internalCall together, I found it makes it easier to iterate on it when you can see all places that need to be updated together on one screen.
|
Addressed the feedback. |
Reindent and change more concats to templates.
RReverser
force-pushed
the
emval-optimised-call-new
branch
from
7ba7779 to
b4fef41
Compare
brendandahl
approved these changes
Oct 18, 2023
brendandahl
added a commit
to brendandahl/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 5, 2024
Before PR emscripten-core#20383 val's `call` and `operator()` had different behaviors where one would automatically destroy arguments after the call and the other didn't. After that PR, they both called destroy. The automatic destruction wasn't really documented anywhere and and led to some unexpected behavior. This changes it so neither automatically destroys the arguments which I think is more inline with the rest of embind where it's up to the user to handle object lifetimes. Fixes: emscripten-core#21016 and emscripten-core#20095
brendandahl
added a commit
to brendandahl/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2024
Before PR emscripten-core#20383 val's `call` and `operator()` had different behaviors where one would automatically destroy arguments after the call and the other didn't. After that PR, they both called destroy. The automatic destruction wasn't really documented anywhere and and led to some unexpected behavior. This changes it so neither automatically destroys the arguments which I think is more inline with the rest of embind where it's up to the user to handle object lifetimes. Fixes: emscripten-core#21016 and emscripten-core#20095
brendandahl
added a commit
to brendandahl/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2024
Before PR emscripten-core#20383 val's `call` and `operator()` had different behaviors where one would automatically destroy arguments after the call and the other didn't. After that PR, they both called destroy. The automatic destruction wasn't really documented anywhere and and led to some unexpected behavior. This changes it so neither automatically destroys the arguments which I think is more inline with the rest of embind where it's up to the user to handle object lifetimes. Fixes: emscripten-core#21016 and emscripten-core#20095
brendandahl
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2024
…21022) Before PR #20383 val's `call` and `operator()` had different behaviors where one would automatically destroy arguments after the call and the other didn't. After that PR, they both called destroy. The automatic destruction wasn't really documented anywhere and and led to some unexpected behavior. This changes it so neither automatically destroys the arguments which I think is more inline with the rest of embind where it's up to the user to handle object lifetimes. Fixes: #21016 and #20095
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.
Method, function and constructor calls are very similar in nature but used different code paths: method calls have an optimisation where an optimised caller trampoline is generated once and reused for each function signature, whereas the other two serialized arguments and types every time.
There is no reason for them to diverge, so I made function calls and constructors reuse the same optimisation.
Results on a silly microbenchmark running a side-effect-ful JS function with 100 integer args in a loop:
Before
with dynamic execution:
as method: 224.504ns
as function: 5367.9ns
without dynamic execution:
as method: 845.044ns
as function: 5350.96ns
After
with dynamic execution:
as method: 262.74ns
as function: 246.593ns
without dynamic execution:
as method: 859.534ns
as function: 823.498ns
In real world the difference is unlikely to be perceptible, but at the very least this makes the code more consistent and deletes a bunch of duplication.