[optimizing] Do not inline intrinsics

The intrinsics generally have specialized code and the code for them
may be faster than what can be achieved with inlining. Thus inliner
should skip intrinsics.

At the same time, easy methods are not worth intrinsifying: ie String
length and isEmpty. Those can be handled by inliner with no problem
and can actually lead to better code since call is not kept around
through all of the optimizations.

Change-Id: Iab38e6c33f79efa54d845d4871cf26fa9b235ab0
Signed-off-by: Razvan A Lupusoru <razvan.a.lupusoru@intel.com>

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/compiler/optimizing/intrinsics.cc b/compiler/optimizing/intrinsics.cc
index 36cf8568e..628a844cc 100644
--- a/compiler/optimizing/intrinsics.cc
+++ b/compiler/optimizing/intrinsics.cc
@@ -191,8 +191,10 @@ static Intrinsics GetIntrinsic(InlineMethod method) {
     case kIntrinsicCompareTo:
       return Intrinsics::kStringCompareTo;
     case kIntrinsicIsEmptyOrLength:
-      return ((method.d.data & kIntrinsicFlagIsEmpty) == 0) ?
-          Intrinsics::kStringLength : Intrinsics::kStringIsEmpty;
+      // The inliner can handle these two cases - and this is the preferred approach
+      // since after inlining the call is no longer visible (as opposed to waiting
+      // until codegen to handle intrinsic).
+      return Intrinsics::kNone;
     case kIntrinsicIndexOf:
       return ((method.d.data & kIntrinsicFlagBase0) == 0) ?
           Intrinsics::kStringIndexOfAfter : Intrinsics::kStringIndexOf;