[emval] Reuse method calling optimisation in regular calls#20383
Merged
RReverser merged 11 commits intoemscripten-core:mainfrom Oct 18, 2023
Merged
[emval] Reuse method calling optimisation in regular calls#20383RReverser merged 11 commits intoemscripten-core:mainfrom
RReverser merged 11 commits intoemscripten-core:mainfrom
Conversation
brendandahl
requested changes
Oct 17, 2023
Collaborator
brendandahl
left a comment
brendandahl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, minor nits.
| return internal::_emval_delete(as_handle(), val_ref(property).as_handle()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| template<typename... Args> |
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to keep all variants / usages of internalCall together, I found it makes it easier to iterate on it when you can see all places that need to be updated together on one screen.
Collaborator
Author
|
Addressed the feedback. |
Reindent and change more concats to templates.
RReverser
force-pushed
the
emval-optimised-call-new
branch
from
7ba7779 to
b4fef41
Compare
brendandahl
approved these changes
Oct 18, 2023
brendandahl
added a commit
to brendandahl/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 5, 2024
Before PR emscripten-core#20383 val's `call` and `operator()` had different behaviors where one would automatically destroy arguments after the call and the other didn't. After that PR, they both called destroy. The automatic destruction wasn't really documented anywhere and and led to some unexpected behavior. This changes it so neither automatically destroys the arguments which I think is more inline with the rest of embind where it's up to the user to handle object lifetimes. Fixes: emscripten-core#21016 and emscripten-core#20095
brendandahl
added a commit
to brendandahl/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2024
Before PR emscripten-core#20383 val's `call` and `operator()` had different behaviors where one would automatically destroy arguments after the call and the other didn't. After that PR, they both called destroy. The automatic destruction wasn't really documented anywhere and and led to some unexpected behavior. This changes it so neither automatically destroys the arguments which I think is more inline with the rest of embind where it's up to the user to handle object lifetimes. Fixes: emscripten-core#21016 and emscripten-core#20095
brendandahl
added a commit
to brendandahl/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2024
Before PR emscripten-core#20383 val's `call` and `operator()` had different behaviors where one would automatically destroy arguments after the call and the other didn't. After that PR, they both called destroy. The automatic destruction wasn't really documented anywhere and and led to some unexpected behavior. This changes it so neither automatically destroys the arguments which I think is more inline with the rest of embind where it's up to the user to handle object lifetimes. Fixes: emscripten-core#21016 and emscripten-core#20095
brendandahl
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2024
…21022) Before PR #20383 val's `call` and `operator()` had different behaviors where one would automatically destroy arguments after the call and the other didn't. After that PR, they both called destroy. The automatic destruction wasn't really documented anywhere and and led to some unexpected behavior. This changes it so neither automatically destroys the arguments which I think is more inline with the rest of embind where it's up to the user to handle object lifetimes. Fixes: #21016 and #20095
RReverser
added a commit
to RReverser/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2025
This is the next step in refactorings I started back in emscripten-core#20383 to merge all Embind generic method callers into a single mechanism. I never got around to landing this PR because I kept trying to split it into even smaller changes / steps, never found a good way to do so due to how entangled they were, got frustrated and left it alone. However, aside from being a nice-to-have optimisation or cleanup refactoring, it's also an easy way to deal with issues like emscripten-core#24547 which makes it a bit more pressing. Without this PR, we'd have to duplicate the `emval_as`+`emval_as_int64`+`emval_as_uint64` fix from emscripten-core#13889 for `emval_call` and `emval_call_method` as well, but after this PR everything goes through the same centralised implementation where we can deal with all Embind types in a consistent manner. There are some more things that I'd like to clean up here (including some of the complexity added by this very own PR), but in order to try and keep review scope smaller, I'm going to submit them separately. Fixes emscripten-core#24547.
RReverser
added a commit
to RReverser/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2025
This is the next step in refactorings I started back in emscripten-core#20383 to merge all Embind generic method callers into a single mechanism. I never got around to landing this PR because I kept trying to split it into even smaller changes / steps, never found a good way to do so due to how entangled they were, got frustrated and left it alone. However, aside from being a nice-to-have optimisation or cleanup refactoring, it's also an easy way to deal with issues like emscripten-core#24547 which makes it a bit more pressing. Without this PR, we'd have to duplicate the `emval_as`+`emval_as_int64`+`emval_as_uint64` fix from emscripten-core#13889 for `emval_call` and `emval_call_method` as well, but after this PR everything goes through the same centralised implementation where we can deal with all Embind types in a consistent manner. There are some more things that I'd like to clean up here (including some of the complexity added by this very own PR), but in order to try and keep review scope smaller, I'm going to submit them separately. Fixes emscripten-core#24547.
RReverser
added a commit
to RReverser/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 17, 2025
This is the next step in refactorings I started back in emscripten-core#20383 to merge all Embind generic method callers into a single mechanism. I never got around to landing this PR because I kept trying to split it into even smaller changes / steps, never found a good way to do so due to how entangled they were, got frustrated and left it alone. However, aside from being a nice-to-have optimisation or cleanup refactoring, it's also an easy way to deal with issues like emscripten-core#24547 which makes it a bit more pressing. Without this PR, we'd have to duplicate the `emval_as`+`emval_as_int64`+`emval_as_uint64` fix from emscripten-core#13889 for `emval_call` and `emval_call_method` as well, but after this PR everything goes through the same centralised implementation where we can deal with all Embind types in a consistent manner. There are some more things that I'd like to clean up here (including some of the complexity added by this very own PR), but in order to try and keep review scope smaller, I'm going to submit them separately. Fixes emscripten-core#24547.
RReverser
added a commit
to RReverser/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 17, 2025
This is the next step in refactorings I started back in emscripten-core#20383 to merge all Embind generic method callers into a single mechanism. I never got around to landing this PR because I kept trying to split it into even smaller changes / steps, never found a good way to do so due to how entangled they were, got frustrated and left it alone. However, aside from being a nice-to-have optimisation or cleanup refactoring, it's also an easy way to deal with issues like emscripten-core#24547 which makes it a bit more pressing. Without this PR, we'd have to duplicate the `emval_as`+`emval_as_int64`+`emval_as_uint64` fix from emscripten-core#13889 for `emval_call` and `emval_call_method` as well, but after this PR everything goes through the same centralised implementation where we can deal with all Embind types in a consistent manner. There are some more things that I'd like to clean up here (including some of the complexity added by this very own PR), but in order to try and keep review scope smaller, I'm going to submit them separately. Fixes emscripten-core#24547.
RReverser
added a commit
to RReverser/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 17, 2025
This is the next step in refactorings I started back in emscripten-core#20383 to merge all Embind generic method callers into a single mechanism. I never got around to landing this PR because I kept trying to split it into even smaller changes / steps, never found a good way to do so due to how entangled they were, got frustrated and left it alone. However, aside from being a nice-to-have optimisation or cleanup refactoring, it's also an easy way to deal with issues like emscripten-core#24547 which makes it a bit more pressing. Without this PR, we'd have to duplicate the `emval_as`+`emval_as_int64`+`emval_as_uint64` fix from emscripten-core#13889 for `emval_call` and `emval_call_method` as well, but after this PR everything goes through the same centralised implementation where we can deal with all Embind types in a consistent manner. There are some more things that I'd like to clean up here (including some of the complexity added by this very own PR), but in order to try and keep review scope smaller, I'm going to submit them separately. Fixes emscripten-core#24547.
sbc100
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 17, 2025
This is the next step in refactorings I started back in #20383 to merge all Embind generic method callers into a single mechanism. I never got around to landing this PR because I kept trying to split it into even smaller changes / steps, never found a good way to do so due to how entangled they were, got frustrated and left it alone. However, aside from being a nice-to-have optimisation or cleanup refactoring, it's also an easy way to deal with issues like #24547 which makes it a bit more pressing. Without this PR, we'd have to duplicate the `emval_as`+`emval_as_int64`+`emval_as_uint64` fix from #13889 for `emval_call` and `emval_call_method` as well, but after this PR everything goes through the same centralised implementation where we can deal with all Embind types in a consistent manner. There are some more things that I'd like to clean up here (including some of the complexity added by this very own PR), but in order to try and keep review scope smaller, I'm going to submit them separately. Fixes #24547.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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.
Method, function and constructor calls are very similar in nature but used different code paths: method calls have an optimisation where an optimised caller trampoline is generated once and reused for each function signature, whereas the other two serialized arguments and types every time.
There is no reason for them to diverge, so I made function calls and constructors reuse the same optimisation.
Results on a silly microbenchmark running a side-effect-ful JS function with 100 integer args in a loop:
Before
with dynamic execution:
as method: 224.504ns
as function: 5367.9ns
without dynamic execution:
as method: 845.044ns
as function: 5350.96ns
After
with dynamic execution:
as method: 262.74ns
as function: 246.593ns
without dynamic execution:
as method: 859.534ns
as function: 823.498ns
In real world the difference is unlikely to be perceptible, but at the very least this makes the code more consistent and deletes a bunch of duplication.