Revert "JIT: Drop redundant static initializations from (Equality)Com… #56400
Conversation
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
…parer<T>.Default (dotnet#50446)" This reverts commit 46e5fe1.
ghost
added
the
area-CodeGen-coreclr
|
@dotnet/jit-contrib PTAL, it reverts a perf regression. |
jakobbotsch
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2021
|
Should re-open #48358 also? |
|
After the revert we are seeing some new regressions and some improvements. We should consider this when we try again at this fix Windows:
Ubuntu: |
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR reverts #50446 and fixes #56019
The problem is - that PR disabled inlining for
EqualityComparer.get_Default()method so we could easily track it and get rid of it in case if it's not used. Unfortunately, I forgot that in cases where we can't get rid of it - we better have it inlined (just a 'call' overhead).I tried to "inline" it by hands in liveness.cpp (where we decide whether it's used or not) but it needs more work: EgorBo@53bce00 I'll revise it after a short vacation.