make sure inlining is wrapped in a function that can be jit'd about clj-fast

[bsless]

For some reason it looks like the expressions aren't compiled to the same bytecode.
Decompiled areduce:

public final class bench$fn__19404 extends AFunction
{
    public static final Var const__0;

    public static Object invokeStatic() {
        final Object a__6487__auto__19406 = bench$fn__19404.const__0.getRawRoot();
        final Object l__6488__auto__19407 = Reflector.invokeStaticMethod(RT.classForName("clojure.lang.RT"), "alength", new Object[] { a__6487__auto__19406 });
        long idx = 0L;
        long acc = 0L;
        while (Numbers.lt(idx, l__6488__auto__19407)) {
            final long n = RT.intCast(idx) + 1;
            acc = ((long[])bench$fn__19404.const__0.getRawRoot())[RT.intCast(idx)];
            idx = n;
        }
        return Numbers.num(acc);
    }

    @Override
    public Object invoke() {
        return invokeStatic();
    }

    static {
        const__0 = RT.var("clj-fast.bench", "numarr");
    }
}

decompiled defn

public final class bench$traverse_arr extends AFunction
{
    public static Object invokeStatic(final Object arr) {
        final Object a__6487__auto__19396 = arr;
        final int l__6488__auto__19397 = ((long[])a__6487__auto__19396).length;
        long idx = 0L;
        Object acc = null;
        while (idx < l__6488__auto__19397) {
            final long n = RT.intCast(idx) + 1;
            acc = Numbers.num(RT.aget((long[])arr, RT.intCast(idx)));
            idx = n;
        }
        return acc;
    }

    @Override
    public Object invoke(final Object arr) {
        return invokeStatic(arr);
    }
}

I think there's a slight risk of testing in the repl

[joinr]

I didn't think to decompile. Definitely different implementations; one goes through numbers ns (lt vs <), and even has a really round-about lookup for the long array (binding to const0 and doing the rawroot lookup). Very curious. Wonder why this doesn't happen in the defn...

[bsless]

Probably the compiler evaluates it differently than it does a dynamic form

[bsless]

Given what I've found here I'm closing this issue. Feel free to reopen it whenever you think is appropriate or with new findings.