[wasm] Jiterpreter back branch optimizations #84067
Merged
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
If the cfg only contains one back branch target, use a br_if instead of a br_table
ghost
assigned 
|
Tagging subscribers to 'arch-wasm': @lewing Issue DetailsRight now for large methods, sometimes a trace will not actually contain its back branch targets. In that case we should not generate a loop or dispatch table at the top since it serves no purpose.
|
This was referenced Mar 29, 2023
vargaz
approved these changes
Mar 29, 2023
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Right now for large methods, sometimes a trace will not actually contain its back branch targets. In that case we should not generate a loop or dispatch table at the top since it serves no purpose.
Other traces will only contain one reachable back branch target. For those, we can generate a single br_if instead of a br_table, which should be more efficient.