Revert "Manually optimize a rem 64 instruction to avoid regression on runtimes which do not currently optimize it (#96203)" #96415
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
… runtimes which do not currently optimize it (dotnet#96203)" This reverts commit bc83100.
ghost
added
the
community-contribution
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-collections Issue DetailsThis reverts commit bc83100. Full discussion here #96203 (comment) Summary: Also there is reason to believe that there's other missing optimizations exposed by the original PR which weren't addressed by the reverted commit. cc @stephentoub
|
This was referenced Jan 3, 2024
andrewjsaid
deleted the
frozen-collections-length-filter-perf-rem64-revert
branch
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This reverts commit bc83100.
Full discussion here #96203 (comment)
Summary:
While the optimization may have improved mono's benchmarks, it should be a compiler optimization just like in the case of CoreCLR.
Also there is reason to believe that there's other missing optimizations exposed by the original PR which weren't addressed by the reverted commit.
cc @stephentoub