<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>The vast majority would have no pragma, or at least wouldn't have an unphased NOINLINE pragma, so they would typically inline before demand analysis anyway.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757">David Feuer</div><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757">Well-Typed, LLP </div></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> </div><div>Date: 2/16/17 5:20 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: ghc-devs@haskell.org </div><div>Subject: Re: Static data and RULES </div><div><br></div></div>Hi,<br><br>Am Donnerstag, den 16.02.2017, 17:12 -0500 schrieb David Feuer:<br>> Strict constructor wrappers will all be allowed to inline after<br>> demand analysis and worker/wrapper. This matches the way we now<br>> handle wrappers actually created in that phase.<br><br>I am worried that DmdAnal will be less effective the code it sees does<br>not have the wrappers of strict constructors already inlines. It may be<br>that the strictness signature of the wrapper is sufficient to make up<br>for this, but I am not sure.<br><br>Greetings,<br>Joachim<br><br>-- <br>Joachim “nomeata” Breitner<br> mail@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/<br> XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F<br> Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org</body></html>