Clojure

loop should retain primitive int or float without widening

Details

  • Type: Enhancement Enhancement
  • Status: Open Open
  • Priority: Minor Minor
  • Resolution: Unresolved
  • Affects Version/s: Release 1.8
  • Fix Version/s: None
  • Component/s: None
  • Environment:
    Possibly older Clojure versions (but not verified).
  • Patch:
    Code and Test
  • Approval:
    Prescreened

Description

In the following example:

(defn incrementer [n]
  (let [n (int n)]
    (loop [i (int 0)]
      (if (< i n)
        (recur (unchecked-inc-int i))
        i))))

the loop-local starts as an int when just a local but is widened to a long in the recur. It should be possible to retain the primitive int (or alternately float) type on the recur, rather than widening to long (or double).

The compiler code that is promoting the int seems to be:
https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/a19c36927598677c32099dabd0fdb9d3097df259/src/jvm/clojure/lang/Compiler.java#L6377-L6380

Proposed: remove useless widening on loop bindings

Patch: 0001-CLJ-1905-remove-useless-widening-on-loop-bindings.patch

Prescreening comments: My main question here is: do we want to support primitive int/float loop vars?

Activity

Hide
Alex Miller added a comment -

I don't think anything but primitive longs or doubles are intended to be supported in loop/recur. Presuming that is correct, this would be the expected behavior.

The last major round of numeric/primitive refactoring made the decision to focus only on supporting primitive longs and doubles. One consequence of this is that primitive int loops are difficult to optimize - the main time I run into this is when working with Java interop in a tight loop on (for example) String, collection, or array operations (all of which are int-indexed).

Re unchecked-inc vs unchecked-inc-int, the primary reason to have these two variants is not performance but behavior. In particular, hashing operations often expect to get 32-bit int overflow semantics, not 64-bit int overflow semantics.

In summary, I think in the example given I would not write it with either int or unchecked-inc-int but with long and unchecked-inc if you are looking for best performance.

Show
Alex Miller added a comment - I don't think anything but primitive longs or doubles are intended to be supported in loop/recur. Presuming that is correct, this would be the expected behavior. The last major round of numeric/primitive refactoring made the decision to focus only on supporting primitive longs and doubles. One consequence of this is that primitive int loops are difficult to optimize - the main time I run into this is when working with Java interop in a tight loop on (for example) String, collection, or array operations (all of which are int-indexed). Re unchecked-inc vs unchecked-inc-int, the primary reason to have these two variants is not performance but behavior. In particular, hashing operations often expect to get 32-bit int overflow semantics, not 64-bit int overflow semantics. In summary, I think in the example given I would not write it with either int or unchecked-inc-int but with long and unchecked-inc if you are looking for best performance.
Hide
Nicola Mometto added a comment - - edited

Alex Miller I don't think that's correct, as (AFAIK) it's only in fn params/returns that primitive types are supposed to be restricted to longs and doubles.
Note that for example, char, byte, boolean, short etc work just fine in both let and loop, while int and float work fine in let but not in loop.

This is caused by the following 4 lines in Compiler.java https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/Compiler.java#L6278-L6281

As far as I can tell, there's no reason for those 4 lines to be there at this point in time, and removing them makes int and float locals to be emitted correctly inside loops

This example in clojure.org itself seems to assume that ints should work in loops http://clojure.org/reference/java_interop#primitives

Also from that same paragraph:

All Java primitive types are supported
let/loop-bound locals can be of primitive types, having the inferred, possibly primitive type of their init-form

Show
Nicola Mometto added a comment - - edited Alex Miller I don't think that's correct, as (AFAIK) it's only in fn params/returns that primitive types are supposed to be restricted to longs and doubles. Note that for example, char, byte, boolean, short etc work just fine in both let and loop, while int and float work fine in let but not in loop. This is caused by the following 4 lines in Compiler.java https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/Compiler.java#L6278-L6281 As far as I can tell, there's no reason for those 4 lines to be there at this point in time, and removing them makes int and float locals to be emitted correctly inside loops This example in clojure.org itself seems to assume that ints should work in loops http://clojure.org/reference/java_interop#primitives Also from that same paragraph:
All Java primitive types are supported let/loop-bound locals can be of primitive types, having the inferred, possibly primitive type of their init-form
Hide
Alex Miller added a comment -

I agree that it should be possible to let-bound primitives of other types - I'm really talking about what happens on recur.

What would you expect to happen for a fn recur target? I wouldn't expect primitives other than long or double to work there since they can't occur in the function signature.

Note that I haven't closed this ticket, still talking through this.

Show
Alex Miller added a comment - I agree that it should be possible to let-bound primitives of other types - I'm really talking about what happens on recur. What would you expect to happen for a fn recur target? I wouldn't expect primitives other than long or double to work there since they can't occur in the function signature. Note that I haven't closed this ticket, still talking through this.
Hide
Alex Miller added a comment -

I've definitely run into cases where creating a primitive int loop/recur would be useful for tight interop loops given how common int-indexing is in Java (some of the alioth benchmarks in particular would benefit from this). I think the argument is far weaker for float though.

Show
Alex Miller added a comment - I've definitely run into cases where creating a primitive int loop/recur would be useful for tight interop loops given how common int-indexing is in Java (some of the alioth benchmarks in particular would benefit from this). I think the argument is far weaker for float though.
Hide
Nicola Mometto added a comment -

I don't think we need to worry about fn recur targets at all, given that the only possible primitive bindings there are either long or double, and int/floats would get widened anyway, but good point, the tests in a patch for this ticket need to be sure that case is indeed handled.

RE: floats – I recall people complaining about bad support for floats when using clojure for graphical processing.

Even if admittedly a weak argument, I'm always of the idea that we should strike to be as consistent as possible. I don't think anybody would expect let/loop locals to behave differently, or differences between primitive types (other than the documented limitation about long/double being the only working prim types for fn arguments/return vals)

Show
Nicola Mometto added a comment - I don't think we need to worry about fn recur targets at all, given that the only possible primitive bindings there are either long or double, and int/floats would get widened anyway, but good point, the tests in a patch for this ticket need to be sure that case is indeed handled. RE: floats – I recall people complaining about bad support for floats when using clojure for graphical processing. Even if admittedly a weak argument, I'm always of the idea that we should strike to be as consistent as possible. I don't think anybody would expect let/loop locals to behave differently, or differences between primitive types (other than the documented limitation about long/double being the only working prim types for fn arguments/return vals)
Hide
Alex Miller added a comment -

I'll leave this one in here but I'm going to treat it as an enhancement to current behavior. I think there's a good chance that Rich will just say this is working as intended.

I don't think the example is a very good one though and would welcome a better example. The reservations regarding unchecked-inc-int do not seem correct or valid to me (as usage should be fine on longs and is not designed for perf reasons anyways). A good example would should usage of a Java api in a loop where int-indexing and int-math gives better performance.

Show
Alex Miller added a comment - I'll leave this one in here but I'm going to treat it as an enhancement to current behavior. I think there's a good chance that Rich will just say this is working as intended. I don't think the example is a very good one though and would welcome a better example. The reservations regarding unchecked-inc-int do not seem correct or valid to me (as usage should be fine on longs and is not designed for perf reasons anyways). A good example would should usage of a Java api in a loop where int-indexing and int-math gives better performance.
Hide
Nicola Mometto added a comment -

I edited the title as the bug is in `loop`, not `recur`

Show
Nicola Mometto added a comment - I edited the title as the bug is in `loop`, not `recur`
Hide
Nicola Mometto added a comment -

Attached a patch that removes the useless widenings done by the compiler on loop bindings, here's a benchmark demonstrating the speedup gained when areducing over int-arrays:

Before patch:

Clojure 1.8.0
user=> (use 'criterium.core)
nil
user=> (let [xs (int-array (range 1e6))] (bench (areduce xs i ret 0 (+ ret (aget xs i)))))
Evaluation count : 64260 in 60 samples of 1071 calls.
             Execution time mean : 954.009929 µs
    Execution time std-deviation : 20.292809 µs
   Execution time lower quantile : 926.331747 µs ( 2.5%)
   Execution time upper quantile : 1.009189 ms (97.5%)
                   Overhead used : 1.840681 ns

Found 4 outliers in 60 samples (6.6667 %)
	low-severe	 4 (6.6667 %)
 Variance from outliers : 9.4244 % Variance is slightly inflated by outliers
nil

After patch:

Clojure 1.9.0-master-SNAPSHOT
user=> (use 'criterium.core)
nil
user=> (let [xs (int-array (range 1e6))] (bench (areduce xs i ret 0 (+ ret (aget xs i)))))
Evaluation count : 68640 in 60 samples of 1144 calls.
             Execution time mean : 870.462532 µs
    Execution time std-deviation : 13.100790 µs
   Execution time lower quantile : 852.357513 µs ( 2.5%)
   Execution time upper quantile : 896.531529 µs (97.5%)
                   Overhead used : 1.844045 ns

Found 1 outliers in 60 samples (1.6667 %)
	low-severe	 1 (1.6667 %)
 Variance from outliers : 1.6389 % Variance is slightly inflated by outliers
nil
Show
Nicola Mometto added a comment - Attached a patch that removes the useless widenings done by the compiler on loop bindings, here's a benchmark demonstrating the speedup gained when areducing over int-arrays: Before patch:
Clojure 1.8.0
user=> (use 'criterium.core)
nil
user=> (let [xs (int-array (range 1e6))] (bench (areduce xs i ret 0 (+ ret (aget xs i)))))
Evaluation count : 64260 in 60 samples of 1071 calls.
             Execution time mean : 954.009929 µs
    Execution time std-deviation : 20.292809 µs
   Execution time lower quantile : 926.331747 µs ( 2.5%)
   Execution time upper quantile : 1.009189 ms (97.5%)
                   Overhead used : 1.840681 ns

Found 4 outliers in 60 samples (6.6667 %)
	low-severe	 4 (6.6667 %)
 Variance from outliers : 9.4244 % Variance is slightly inflated by outliers
nil
After patch:
Clojure 1.9.0-master-SNAPSHOT
user=> (use 'criterium.core)
nil
user=> (let [xs (int-array (range 1e6))] (bench (areduce xs i ret 0 (+ ret (aget xs i)))))
Evaluation count : 68640 in 60 samples of 1144 calls.
             Execution time mean : 870.462532 µs
    Execution time std-deviation : 13.100790 µs
   Execution time lower quantile : 852.357513 µs ( 2.5%)
   Execution time upper quantile : 896.531529 µs (97.5%)
                   Overhead used : 1.844045 ns

Found 1 outliers in 60 samples (1.6667 %)
	low-severe	 1 (1.6667 %)
 Variance from outliers : 1.6389 % Variance is slightly inflated by outliers
nil

People

Vote (1)
Watch (2)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated: