How is this Generic-based instance implementation optimized by GHC?

[Ömer Sinan Ağacan]

Hi all,

I'm very confused by an optimization GHC is doing. I have this code:


    data Tree a = Leaf a | Branch (Tree a) (Tree a)
      deriving (Generic, Show, NFData)

    data Tree1 a = Leaf1 a | Branch1 (Tree1 a) (Tree1 a)
      deriving (Show)

    instance NFData a => NFData (Tree1 a) where
      rnf (Leaf1 a) = rnf a
      rnf (Branch1 t1 t2) = rnf t1 `seq` rnf t2


When I benchmarked rnf calls I realized that they're too close, and I looked at
simplifier outputs. I believe these are relevant parts:

    Rec {
    Main.$fNFDataTree_$crnf [Occ=LoopBreaker]
      :: forall a_ab5v. NFData a_ab5v => Tree a_ab5v -> ()
    Main.$fNFDataTree_$crnf =
      \ (@ a17_ab5v)
        ($dNFData_ab5w :: NFData a17_ab5v)
        (eta_B1 :: Tree a17_ab5v) ->
        case eta_B1 of _ [Occ=Dead] {
          Leaf g1_aaHO ->
            ($dNFData_ab5w
             `cast` (Control.DeepSeq.NTCo:NFData[0] <a17_ab5v>_N
                     :: NFData a17_ab5v ~R# (a17_ab5v -> ())))
              g1_aaHO;
          Branch g1_aaHP g2_aaHQ ->
            case Main.$fNFDataTree_$crnf @ a17_ab5v $dNFData_ab5w g1_aaHP
            of _ [Occ=Dead] { () ->
            Main.$fNFDataTree_$crnf @ a17_ab5v $dNFData_ab5w g2_aaHQ
            }
        }
    end Rec }

    Rec {
    Main.$fNFDataTree1_$crnf [Occ=LoopBreaker]
      :: forall a_abd4. NFData a_abd4 => Tree1 a_abd4 -> ()
    Main.$fNFDataTree1_$crnf =
      \ (@ a17_abd4)
        ($dNFData_abd5 :: NFData a17_abd4)
        (eta_B1 :: Tree1 a17_abd4) ->
        case eta_B1 of _ [Occ=Dead] {
          Leaf1 a18_a4tg ->
            ($dNFData_abd5
             `cast` (Control.DeepSeq.NTCo:NFData[0] <a17_abd4>_N
                     :: NFData a17_abd4 ~R# (a17_abd4 -> ())))
              a18_a4tg;
          Branch1 t1_a4th t2_a4ti ->
            case Main.$fNFDataTree1_$crnf @ a17_abd4 $dNFData_abd5 t1_a4th
            of _ [Occ=Dead] { () ->
            Main.$fNFDataTree1_$crnf @ a17_abd4 $dNFData_abd5 t2_a4ti
            }
        }
    end Rec }

First one is generated by GHC and second one is hand-written. If you compare,
you'll see that they're identical. This looks like some serious magic, because
first one is generated from a default method that uses Generic methods and
types. Does anyone know how is that possible? Which optimization passes are
involved in this?

Thanks.