Big update to prettier-extension-monkeyc

Well I found why (almost) "it" worked. This works:

Oh - thats odd. It seems to work for me. I can even do MyAppName.getProperty(key), which saves a few more bytes.

I'm just surprised, because its not documented as working, and getProperty is documented as an instance method, not a static method. I guess Ive also not tested it on an actual device; so maybe it only works in the simulator. Or maybe it only works on some devices.

On the inlining front, I just released v2.0.13 which will inline suitable functions with the (:inline) annotation if it seems safe.

Currently suitable functions are ones that consist of a single return statement, and its a bit conservative about what "seems safe". It only deals with calls that have literals, identifiers, and member-expressions (eg foo.bar) as arguments, and depending on the body of the function, it may be more conservative than that.

eg

(:inline)
function foo(x) {
  return f() + x;
}

var g;

function bar() {
  foo(g); // won't be inlined because f() might alter g before its read.
}

One exception is that functions that just return their only argument - possibly with a type cast - will be inlined regardless of how they're called, and even without an (:inline) tag. This means you can write type-safe functions to cast away nullness (or any other feature). eg

function nonNullNumber(x as Number?) as Number {
  return x as Number;
}

Its not a great solution, but its better than littering your code with "x as Number", since you still get type checking for everything except nullness (when you just throw in "x as Number" you could accidently apply it to something that was actually "String or Null").

You can also use (:inline_foo) which will only be inlined if foo is set as an excludeAnnotation. This means that you could eg have a function be inlined on devices with lots of memory, but not on ones with very little.

I think being conservative is ok. Can you add a warning if I added the annotation but in some place I used the function you decided not to inline? That would give the developer one more chance to tweak the function. (Especially if it would also give some info about the reason it choose not to inline)

I'm not sure I understood how the :inline_foo works, can you give an example?

BTW what's the point in inlining something if it doesn't shrink the code size? Just for readability?

I might have a candidate, maybe with this you can explain the inline_foo:

    (:no_api1_3, :no_api2, :inline)
    hidden function setAntName(name as String?) as Void {
        mName = name;
    }
    (:api1_3, :inline)
    hidden function setAntName(name as String?) as Void {
        mName = name;
        mFitContributor.setAntName(mSensor, name);
    }

setAntName is called 4 times in the code. I tested if adding :inline to the list of the annotations changed anything in the code size, but it did not neither for epix (that uses the no_api1_3 version) nor for fenix3 (that uses the api1_3 version). Is it possible that the inline only works if it's the only annotation on a function?

Here's another place, setConfig is uses 3 times, for some reason it wasn't inlined either:

(:api2, :memory32K, :inline)
function setConfig(key as PropertyKeyType, val3 as PropertyValueType) as Void {
    Properties.setValue(key, val3);
}

flocsy🤠 said:

setAntName is called 4 times in the code

and

Is it possible that the inline only works if it's the only annotation on a function

Well, you just made me realize that I didn't write any tests specifically for that, but the code is certainly designed to check all the annotations.

But in this case its because (from my post):

Currently suitable functions are ones that consist of a single return statement

This was to make sure that no matter where the call occurs, it's possible to do the substitution.

The next thing to look at is functions whose result isn't used, and which are called as a statement, rather than as part of a bigger expression, which looks like it will cover your examples. And after that maybe calls whose result is directly assigned to a variable, or directly used as the return value of the calling function.

I'm not sure I understood how the :inline_foo works, can you give an example?

If I put:

base.excludeAnnotations = foo
fr235.excludeAnnotations = bar

in my monkey.jungle, then anything annotated (:inline_foo) will be inlined on all devices *except* fr235 (ie all devices that have foo as an excludeAnnotation), and anything annotated (:inline_bar) will be inlined on the fr235 but nothing else.

BTW what's the point in inlining something if it doesn't shrink the code size?

Presumably performance, and power consumption - although that depends on having some way to measure, I suppose.

For example, (not really inline related), the Garmin docs imply that "$.Foo.Bar.baz" is more efficient than just "baz" (assuming both resolve to the same thing). Presumably because it will lookup baz in each block scope out to the containing function, then any class, and then each containing module until it finds it. When it sees "$" it starts from the global scope, and looks up each symbol directly.

But "$.Foo.Bar.baz" produces much more code. One of the optimizations I'm planning to add is to replace qualified names by the shortest possible sequence that identifies the same object; that would definitely help with size. But when I do I should probably also add an option to go the other way... fully qualify everything for performance.

flocsy🤠 said:

BTW what's the point in inlining something if it doesn't shrink the code size?

It would reduce the amount of items on the call stack (although I don't think this has a big impact on memory or performance)

I'm still not sure I understand the real-life usage for :inline_foo, because in most cases either there's a function that is not needed let's say for old devices, only in new, or there's a pair of functions, one for the old devices, one for the new. Either case the other annotations already take care of which should be used (compiled/removed), so there's only one left. Now you say that I can either inline or not inline that based on ANOTHER excludeAnnotation, but also I think your annotation is counterintuitive because it works the opposite way (though this might be only my way of looking at it). [The excludeAnnotations are themselves a bit counterintuitive to be honest]: in the normal (garmin) annotations when you have the above in your monkey.jungle then the function annotated with (:bar) is EXCLUDED on fr235, so it is only present on other devices. In your implementation :include_bar kind of behaves the opposite way: on fr235 it does the include, and on others it doesn't. Anyway I still haven't came up with a use-case when I would find it useful, since I anyway already have the other excludeAnnotations that are based on HW capabilities, so I think for me that + simple :inline is enough. I might start to use the :inline_foo later when I'll see the light ;)

Not to contradict anything else written in this thread (which I have only skimmed), but I've found memory gains in my own apps by manually inlining functions which consisted only of a single line. Probably depends on exactly how complicated that line is, though.