defunctionalization

[Nicolas Frisby]

I think that would work, but I was looking for something more precise.


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Farmer <afarmer at ittc.ku.edu> wrote:

> What happens when you put NOINLINE on the function and compile with
> -fexpose-all-unfoldings? Does that get the behavior you want?
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com
> > wrote:
>
>>  It seems a little weird, but the internal data types can express it, so
>> if you can make the front end do the right thing I’d be happy to take it.
>> (Don’t forget the manual.)****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> SImon****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas
>> Frisby
>> *Sent:* 16 July 2013 21:29
>> *To:* ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> *Subject:* Re: defunctionalization****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Ah, I misread that TidyPgm function.It looks like if I build the
>> CoreUnfolding, GHC will respect it. It's just rejecting the pragma
>> combination in HsSyn.****
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2013 3:22 PM, "Nicolas Frisby" <nicolas.frisby at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd like to put a NOINLINE and an INLINABLE pragma on a binding.
>> >
>> > (I'm sketching a defunctionalization pass. I'd like the 'apply` routine
>> RHS to make it into the interface file, but I do not want it to be inlined,
>> since that'd undo the defunctionalization.)
>> >
>> > In other words, I'd like a CoreUnfolding value with the uf_guidance =
>> UnfNever.
>> >
>> > It seems TidyPgm.addExternal ignores such a core unfolding.
>> >
>> > Would GHC consider a patch to make this work?
>> >
>> > Thanks.****
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20130718/56803cb5/attachment.htm>