# Inference breaks as a result of a simple no-op?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/inference-breaks-as-a-result-of-a-simple-no-op/9624>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Tags:** bug, inference\
**Created:** [March 10, 2018, 12:30am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/inference-breaks-as-a-result-of-a-simple-no-op/9624 "2018-03-10T00:30:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pablosanjose](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/pablosanjose/32/7006_2.png) [@pablosanjose](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/pablosanjose)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 12:30am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/inference-breaks-as-a-result-of-a-simple-no-op/9624/1 "2018-03-10T00:30:56Z")

</div>

I’ve been hunting down some performance problem in some code, and was finding behaviour of the inference engine that make no sense to me whatsoever. I’ve managed to reduce it to the following minimal example:

```julia
struct Bar{L}
    nt::NTuple{L,Int}
end

function test(bar::Bar{L}) where {L}
    # first(bar.nt) == 0 && nothing
    v = rand(-5:5, L)
    r = ntuple(k -> v[k], Val(L))
    return r
end

```

The problem is in the apparently harmless line that is commented out. It appears to do nothing, right? Well, without it, the function is type-stable, and it output is properly inferred

```julia
@code_warntype test(Bar((1,2,3,4)))
Variables:
  bar<optimized out>
  v<optimized out>
  r<optimized out>
  t_1<optimized out>
  t_2<optimized out>
  t_3<optimized out>
  t_4<optimized out>

Body:
   ...
  end::NTuple{4,Int64}

```

However, if I now uncomment the silly `nothing` line, `test` becomes type-unstable and very slow

```julia
@code_warntype test(Bar((1,2,3,4)))
Variables:
  bar::Bar{4}
  #11::getfield(, Symbol("##11#12"))
  v<optimized out>
  r<optimized out>
  t_1::Any
  t_2::Any
  t_3::Any
  t_4::Any

Body:
   ...
  end::NTuple{4,Any}

```

Any clue what might be going on here? Any suggestion is appreciated! This cropped up when including `@assert` statements or checks in a function. My solution for the moment is to comment out the checks, but I would like to have them back :-).

```julia
julia> versioninfo()
Julia Version 0.7.0-DEV.4055
Commit da98033388 (2018-02-22 09:10 UTC)
Platform Info:
  OS: macOS (x86_64-apple-darwin17.4.0)
  CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7500 CPU @ 3.40GHz
  WORD_SIZE: 64
  LIBM: libopenlibm
  LLVM: libLLVM-3.9.1 (ORCJIT, skylake)
Environment:

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kristoffer.carlsson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/kristoffer.carlsson/32/22_2.png) [@kristoffer.carlsson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/kristoffer.carlsson)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 8:25am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/inference-breaks-as-a-result-of-a-simple-no-op/9624/2 "2018-03-10T08:25:31Z")

</div>

It seems like anything that has a short circuit makes it fail:

```julia
julia> function test(bar::Bar{L}) where {L}
           true && 2
           v = rand(-5:5, L)
           r = ntuple(k -> v[k], Val(L))
           return r
       end
test (generic function with 1 method)

```

Please file an issue about this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![saschatimme](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/saschatimme/32/10313_2.png) [@saschatimme](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/saschatimme)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 9:05am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/inference-breaks-as-a-result-of-a-simple-no-op/9624/3 "2018-03-10T09:05:38Z")

</div>

> [@pablosanjose](#):
>
> The problem is in the apparently harmless line that is commented out. It appears to do nothing, right? Well, without it, the function is type-stable, and it output is properly inferred

> [@pablosanjose](#):
>
> However, if I now uncomment the silly nothing line, test becomes type-unstable and very slow

~~But the function is not type stable, isn’t it? Since you would either return a `NTuple{L, Int}`  
or `nothing` which are two different return types. So the best the compiler could do would be to infer `Union{NTuple{L, Int}, nothing}` as return type (which it indeed should be capable to).~~

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pablosanjose](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/pablosanjose/32/7006_2.png) [@pablosanjose](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/pablosanjose)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 9:11am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/inference-breaks-as-a-result-of-a-simple-no-op/9624/4 "2018-03-10T09:11:10Z")

</div>

Why would it return `nothing`? It should return `r`, which is always a `NTuple{L, Int}` as far as I can see.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![saschatimme](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/saschatimme/32/10313_2.png) [@saschatimme](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/saschatimme)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 9:12am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/inference-breaks-as-a-result-of-a-simple-no-op/9624/5 "2018-03-10T09:12:34Z")

</div>

Ah sorry, I thought there was an early return. Probably shouldn’t write before my first coffee…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pablosanjose](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/pablosanjose/32/7006_2.png) [@pablosanjose](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/pablosanjose)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 9:15am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/inference-breaks-as-a-result-of-a-simple-no-op/9624/6 "2018-03-10T09:15:21Z")

</div>

[https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/26402](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/26402)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pablosanjose](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/pablosanjose/32/7006_2.png) [@pablosanjose](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/pablosanjose)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 6:50pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/inference-breaks-as-a-result-of-a-simple-no-op/9624/7 "2018-03-10T18:50:00Z")

</div>

Well, as pointed out in the issue above, this seems to be just another instance of the hairy [#15276](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/15276) issue, related to inference funkiness with variables captured in closures. The essence of it is that as soon as `v` is captured in a closure by the `ntuple` line, inference is unsure about the type of `r`. The role of the commented line is unclear, but something analogous was already [noted](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/15276#issuecomment-363465182) in the #15276 issue. Excuse the noise!