JVM_IR generate range-based loop closer to Java counter loop

KT-48435 KT-48507

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInDownToWithIndex.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((i, v) in (7 downTo 4).withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInIndicesWithIndex.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((i, v) in listOf(4, 5, 6, 7).indices.withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInRangeToWithIndex.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((i, v) in (4..7).withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInReversedStepWithIndex.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((i, v) in ((4..11).reversed() step 2).withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInReversedWithIndex.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((i, v) in (4..7).reversed().withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInStepReversedWithIndex.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((i, v) in (4..11 step 2).reversed().withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInStepWithIndex.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((i, v) in (4..11 step 2).withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInUntilWithIndex.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((i, v) in (4 until 8).withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInWithIndexNoIndexOrElementVar.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((_, _) in (4..7).withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInWithIndexNotDestructured.kt

@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for (iv in (4..7).withIndex()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInWithIndexReversed.kt

@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((i, v) in (4..7).withIndex().reversed()) {
     }

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/forLoop/forInProgressionWithIndex/forInWithIndexWithIndex.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,14 @@
 // IGNORE_BACKEND_FIR: JVM_IR
+
+// IMPORTANT!
+// Please, when your changes cause failures in bytecodeText tests for 'for' loops,
+// examine the resulting bytecode shape carefully.
+// Range and progression-based loops generated with Kotlin compiler should be
+// as close as possible to Java counter loops ('for (int i = a; i < b; ++i) { ... }').
+// Otherwise it may result in performance regression due to missing HotSpot optimizations.
+// Run Kotlin compiler benchmarks (https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-benchmarks)
+// with compiler built from your changes if you are not sure.
+
 fun box(): String {
     for ((outer, iv) in (4..7).withIndex().withIndex()) {
     }