Is the issue still actual? Let me take it.

Here's a sample of a similar optimization where small memequals calls are optimized.

@Kels9009 great! Ask here if you have questions. Please be sure to add a codegen test (see test/codegen).

@dr2chase @josharian OK, thanks for useful information.

Hello,

I investigated the issue and I would like to get an advice to select the right direction in order to fix it.

First, I tried to make generic solution. Here the SSA dump:

As you can see on the late stage of optimization (late opt) the problem is memmove are using Phi operation as a size argument (v50). Phi operation can't be eliminated due to rules require both arguments to be constant (we have Arg + Const):

// basic phi simplifications
...
(Phi (Const64  [c]) (Const64  [c])) => (Const64  [c])
...

But 'memmove' size argument detected as a constant on the next stage (before lowering) - dead auto elim + generic deadcode:

In this case memmove can be inlined using current rules without modification.

So, I added another one opt stage after dead auto elim + generic deadcode. As a result memmove was inlined successfully and almost all all.bash tests were passed except few codegen tests (for example writebarrier).
Another solution was to move late opt to position after dead auto elim + generic deadcode. Unfortunately, the result is broken code generation.

So, as a result a have few branches for next steps:

1. Add arch-specific runtime.memmove-to-Move lowering. I already have the first implementation in my local branch for AMD64 and it works fine. I don't like this solution because it requires to implement this rule for each archs and I think generic rules are more proper place for such optimization. But still, we can use it and ignore my doubts :).
2. Add another generic opt stage after dead auto elim + generic deadcode and fix all failed tests. I think this is the worst solution, because we can't predict how many hidden problems we will create.
3. Extract memmove recognition rules from generic to the new file and insert new opt stage after dead auto elim + generic deadcode. This solution move memmove inlining to the later position. In this case we reduce chance to overlook mistake and restructure rules. The problem is current source-code structure doesn't have dedicated files for each types of optimizations (they all are stored in generic and arch-specific rules), and I'm not sure I can decide by myself such change without experts.

What do you think about it? Which one of these directions is right solution?

@kels-ng A note for the future: when pasting text, please just paste plain text, not an image. At least for me your images are nearly illegible, whereas everyone using this issue tracker can read plain text. Thanks.

Thanks, @kels-ng. We should do option (1).

New rules are pretty cheap. There are a fair number of rules duplicated in generic and lowered opt, for similar reasons. We don't want to introduce new opt passes without a very compelling need, and moving around existing passes is risky.

Change https://golang.org/cl/289151 mentions this issue: cmd/compile: add arch-specific inlining for runtime.memmove

Change https://golang.org/cl/352054 mentions this issue: cmd/compile: add PP64-specific inlining for runtime.memmove