Feature #18825
closedSpecialized instruction for "array literal + `.hash`"
Description
Feature #18611 is merged. That feature encourages people to write hash methods like this:
def hash
  [@a, @b, @c].hash
end
I would like to add a specialized instruction for this case opt_newarray_hash.  It's similar to opt_newarray_max and opt_newarray_min but for the hash method.
ISeqs before the optimization:
== disasm: #<ISeq:hash@test.rb:1 (1,0)-(3,3)> (catch: FALSE)
0000 getinstancevariable          :@a, <is:0>                         (   2)[LiCa]
0003 getinstancevariable          :@b, <is:1>
0006 getinstancevariable          :@c, <is:2>
0009 newarray                     3
0011 opt_send_without_block       <callinfo!mid:hash, argc:0, ARGS_SIMPLE>, <callcache>
0014 leave  
ISeqs after the optimization:
== disasm: #<ISeq:hash@test.rb:1 (1,0)-(3,3)> (catch: FALSE)
0000 getinstancevariable                    :@a, <is:0>               (   2)[LiCa]
0003 getinstancevariable                    :@b, <is:1>
0006 getinstancevariable                    :@c, <is:2>
0009 opt_newarray_hash                      3
0011 leave  
The new instruction allows us to avoid allocating a new array and also avoid pushing a stack frame.
The implementation is here, and I've also attached a patch.
Files
        
           Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) over 3 years ago
          Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) over 3 years ago
          
          
        
        
      
      Just an idea. Is it possible to introduce a general instruction like opt_newarray_send instead of individual opt_newarray_* instructions?
        
           Updated by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) over 3 years ago
          Updated by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) over 3 years ago
          
          
        
        
      
      mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-1:
Just an idea. Is it possible to introduce a general instruction like
opt_newarray_sendinstead of individualopt_newarray_*instructions?
It should be possible (IMO).  But I guess it means the bytecode might be larger for opt_newarray_min and opt_newarray_max because we probably need to add a parameter for opt_newarray_send.  Maybe it's not a big deal though.  I will try making a patch.
        
           Updated by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) over 2 years ago
          Updated by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) over 2 years ago
          
          
        
        
      
      - Status changed from Open to Rejected
Closing in favor of #18897