Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

cmd/compile: eliminate memory allocation for non-int n in slice extension idiom #29785

valyala opened this issue Jan 17, 2019 · 5 comments
compiler/runtime NeedsFix Performance


Copy link

valyala commented Jan 17, 2019

The slice extension idiom from #21266 doesn't work in go tip for non-int n in append(a, make([]T, n)...):

func BenchmarkExtendInt(b *testing.B) {
        var buf []byte
        n := int(12345)
        for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
                buf = append(buf[:0], make([]byte, n)...)

func BenchmarkExtendUint64(b *testing.B) {
        var buf []byte
        n := uint64(12345)
        for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
                buf = append(buf[:0], make([]byte, n)...)

Benchmark results:

BenchmarkExtendInt-4      	10000000	       145 ns/op	       0 B/op	       0 allocs/op
BenchmarkExtendUint64-4   	 1000000	      1576 ns/op	   13568 B/op	       1 allocs/op

As you can see, if n has a type other than int, go doesn't remove the allocation.

@valyala valyala changed the title Eliminate memory allocation for non-int n in slice extension idiom cmd/compile: eliminate memory allocation for non-int n in slice extension idiom Jan 17, 2019
@mvdan mvdan added Performance NeedsFix labels Jan 17, 2019
Copy link

mvdan commented Jan 17, 2019

I'm curious - what happens with other integer types like int16 or int64?

Copy link

josharian commented Jan 17, 2019

cc @martisch

Copy link

martisch commented Jan 17, 2019

This was a known limitation when writing the compiler optimization and there is a todo in the walk.go code to support more types. Adding all types which values fit in an int shouldnt be hard. For types exceeding the value range of int we need additional runtime checks. E.g. if uint64 seems worth supporting even if only for consistency we can add an extra check to throw the same panic as eg makeslice64 does. I have a look at it once the tree opens for go1.13.

@agnivade agnivade added this to the Go1.13 milestone Jan 17, 2019
Copy link

gopherbot commented Jun 16, 2019

Change mentions this issue: cmd/compile: more optimization for append(x, make([]T, y)...) slice extension

@andybons andybons modified the milestones: Go1.13, Go1.14 Jul 8, 2019
gopherbot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 17, 2019 optimized the compiler to avoid the allocation for make in
append(x, make([]T, y)...). This was only implemented for the case that y has type int.

This change extends the optimization to trigger for all integer types where the value
is known at compile time to fit into an int.

name             old time/op    new time/op    delta
ExtendInt-12        106ns ± 4%     106ns ± 0%      ~     (p=0.351 n=10+6)
ExtendUint64-12    1.03µs ± 5%    0.10µs ± 4%   -90.01%  (p=0.000 n=9+10)

name             old alloc/op   new alloc/op   delta
ExtendInt-12        0.00B          0.00B           ~     (all equal)
ExtendUint64-12    13.6kB ± 0%     0.0kB       -100.00%  (p=0.000 n=10+10)

name             old allocs/op  new allocs/op  delta
ExtendInt-12         0.00           0.00           ~     (all equal)
ExtendUint64-12      1.00 ± 0%      0.00       -100.00%  (p=0.000 n=10+10)

Updates #29785

Change-Id: Ief7760097c285abd591712da98c5b02bc3961fcd
Run-TryBot: Cuong Manh Le <>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <>
@rsc rsc modified the milestones: Go1.14, Backlog Oct 9, 2019
Copy link

quasilyte commented Jan 1, 2022 fixes the provided benchmarks.
Can this issue be closed or there is something else left to do here?

@gopherbot gopherbot added the compiler/runtime label Jul 13, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
compiler/runtime NeedsFix Performance
Status: Triage Backlog

No branches or pull requests

9 participants