ArrayArrays

[Ryan Yates]

I think from my perspective, the motivation for getting the type
checker involved is primarily bringing this to the level where users
could be expected to build these structures.  it is reasonable to
think that there are people who want to use STM (a context with
mutation already) to implement a straight forward data structure that
avoids extra indirection penalty.  There should be some places where
knowing that things are field accesses rather then array indexing
could be helpful, but I think GHC is good right now about handling
constant offsets.  In my code I don't do any bounds checking as I know
I will only be accessing my arrays with constant indexes.  I make
wrappers for each field access and leave all the unsafe stuff in
there.  When things go wrong though, the compiler is no help.  Maybe
template Haskell that generates the appropriate wrappers is the right
direction to go.
There is another benefit for me when working with these as arrays in
that it is quite simple and direct (given the hoops already jumped
through) to play with alignment.  I can ensure two pointers are never
on the same cache-line by just spacing things out in the array.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:
> They just segfault at this level. ;)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 28, 2015, at 7:25 PM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You presumably also save a bounds check on reads by hard-coding the sizes?
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also there are 4 different "things" here, basically depending on two
>> independent questions:
>>
>> a.) if you want to shove the sizes into the info table, and
>> b.) if you want cardmarking.
>>
>> Versions with/without cardmarking for different sizes can be done pretty
>> easily, but as noted, the infotable variants are pretty invasive.
>>
>> -Edward
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, on the plus side you'd save 16 bytes per object, which adds up if
>>> they were small enough and there are enough of them. You get a bit better
>>> locality of reference in terms of what fits in the first cache line of them.
>>>
>>> -Edward
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes. And for the short term I can imagine places we will settle with
>>>> arrays even if it means tracking lengths unnecessarily and unsafeCoercing
>>>> pointers whose types don't actually match their siblings.
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything to recommend the hacks mentioned for fixed sized array
>>>> objects *other* than using them to fake structs? (Much to derecommend, as
>>>> you mentioned!)
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:07 PM Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think both are useful, but the one you suggest requires a lot more
>>>>> plumbing and doesn't subsume all of the usecases of the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Edward
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So that primitive is an array like thing (Same pointed type, unbounded
>>>>>> length) with extra payload.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see how we can do without structs if we have arrays, especially
>>>>>> with the extra payload at front. But wouldn't the general solution for
>>>>>> structs be one that that allows new user data type defs for # types?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 4:43 PM Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some form of MutableStruct# with a known number of words and a known
>>>>>>> number of pointers is basically what Ryan Yates was suggesting above, but
>>>>>>> where the word counts were stored in the objects themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that it'd have a couple of words for those counts it'd likely
>>>>>>> want to be something we build in addition to MutVar# rather than a
>>>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, if we had to fix those numbers and build info
>>>>>>> tables that knew them, and typechecker support, for instance, it'd get
>>>>>>> rather invasive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, a number of things that we can do with the 'sized' versions
>>>>>>> above, like working with evil unsized c-style arrays directly inline at the
>>>>>>> end of the structure cease to be possible, so it isn't even a pure win if we
>>>>>>> did the engineering effort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think 90% of the needs I have are covered just by adding the one
>>>>>>> primitive. The last 10% gets pretty invasive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Edward
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like the possibility of a general solution for mutable structs
>>>>>>>> (like Ed said), and I'm trying to fully understand why it's hard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, we can't unpack MutVar into constructors because of object
>>>>>>>> identity problems. But what about directly supporting an extensible set of
>>>>>>>> unlifted MutStruct# objects, generalizing (and even replacing) MutVar#? That
>>>>>>>> may be too much work, but is it problematic otherwise?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Needless to say, this is also critical if we ever want best in class
>>>>>>>> lockfree mutable structures, just like their Stm and sequential
>>>>>>>> counterparts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 4:43 AM Simon Peyton Jones
>>>>>>>> <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least I'll take this email and turn it into a short
>>>>>>>>> article.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, please do make it into a wiki page on the GHC Trac, and maybe
>>>>>>>>> make a ticket for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Edward Kmett [mailto:ekmett at gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: 27 August 2015 16:54
>>>>>>>>> To: Simon Peyton Jones
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Manuel M T Chakravarty; Simon Marlow; ghc-devs
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: ArrayArrays
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An ArrayArray# is just an Array# with a modified invariant. It
>>>>>>>>> points directly to other unlifted ArrayArray#'s or ByteArray#'s.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While those live in #, they are garbage collected objects, so this
>>>>>>>>> all lives on the heap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They were added to make some of the DPH stuff fast when it has to
>>>>>>>>> deal with nested arrays.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm currently abusing them as a placeholder for a better thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Problem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Consider the scenario where you write a classic doubly-linked list
>>>>>>>>> in Haskell.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data DLL = DLL (IORef (Maybe DLL) (IORef (Maybe DLL)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chasing from one DLL to the next requires following 3 pointers on
>>>>>>>>> the heap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DLL ~> IORef (Maybe DLL) ~> MutVar# RealWorld (Maybe DLL) ~> Maybe
>>>>>>>>> DLL ~> DLL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is 3 levels of indirection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can trim one by simply unpacking the IORef with
>>>>>>>>> -funbox-strict-fields or UNPACK
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can trim another by adding a 'Nil' constructor for DLL and
>>>>>>>>> worsening our representation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data DLL = DLL !(IORef DLL) !(IORef DLL) | Nil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but now we're still stuck with a level of indirection
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DLL ~> MutVar# RealWorld DLL ~> DLL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This means that every operation we perform on this structure will
>>>>>>>>> be about half of the speed of an implementation in most other languages
>>>>>>>>> assuming we're memory bound on loading things into cache!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Making Progress
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have been working on a number of data structures where the
>>>>>>>>> indirection of going from something in * out to an object in # which
>>>>>>>>> contains the real pointer to my target and coming back effectively doubles
>>>>>>>>> my runtime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We go out to the MutVar# because we are allowed to put the MutVar#
>>>>>>>>> onto the mutable list when we dirty it. There is a well defined
>>>>>>>>> write-barrier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I could change out the representation to use
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data DLL = DLL (MutableArray# RealWorld DLL) | Nil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can just store two pointers in the MutableArray# every time, but
>>>>>>>>> this doesn't help _much_ directly. It has reduced the amount of distinct
>>>>>>>>> addresses in memory I touch on a walk of the DLL from 3 per object to 2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still have to go out to the heap from my DLL and get to the array
>>>>>>>>> object and then chase it to the next DLL and chase that to the next array. I
>>>>>>>>> do get my two pointers together in memory though. I'm paying for a card
>>>>>>>>> marking table as well, which I don't particularly need with just two
>>>>>>>>> pointers, but we can shed that with the "SmallMutableArray#" machinery added
>>>>>>>>> back in 7.10, which is just the old array code a a new data type, which can
>>>>>>>>> speed things up a bit when you don't have very big arrays:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data DLL = DLL (SmallMutableArray# RealWorld DLL) | Nil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But what if I wanted my object itself to live in # and have two
>>>>>>>>> mutable fields and be able to share the sme write barrier?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An ArrayArray# points directly to other unlifted array types. What
>>>>>>>>> if we have one # -> * wrapper on the outside to deal with the impedence
>>>>>>>>> mismatch between the imperative world and Haskell, and then just let the
>>>>>>>>> ArrayArray#'s hold other arrayarrays.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data DLL = DLL (MutableArrayArray# RealWorld)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> now I need to make up a new Nil, which I can just make be a special
>>>>>>>>> MutableArrayArray# I allocate on program startup. I can even abuse pattern
>>>>>>>>> synonyms. Alternately I can exploit the internals further to make this
>>>>>>>>> cheaper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then I can use the readMutableArrayArray# and
>>>>>>>>> writeMutableArrayArray# calls to directly access the preceding and next
>>>>>>>>> entry in the linked list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now we have one DLL wrapper which just 'bootstraps me' into a
>>>>>>>>> strict world, and everything there lives in #.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> next :: DLL -> IO DLL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> next (DLL m) = IO $ \s -> case readMutableArrayArray# s of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    (# s', n #) -> (# s', DLL n #)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It turns out GHC is quite happy to optimize all of that code to
>>>>>>>>> keep things unboxed. The 'DLL' wrappers get removed pretty easily when they
>>>>>>>>> are known strict and you chain operations of this sort!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cleaning it Up
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now I have one outermost indirection pointing to an array that
>>>>>>>>> points directly to other arrays.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm stuck paying for a card marking table per object, but I can fix
>>>>>>>>> that by duplicating the code for MutableArrayArray# and using a
>>>>>>>>> SmallMutableArray#. I can hack up primops that let me store a mixture of
>>>>>>>>> SmallMutableArray# fields and normal ones in the data structure.
>>>>>>>>> Operationally, I can even do so by just unsafeCoercing the existing
>>>>>>>>> SmallMutableArray# primitives to change the kind of one of the arguments it
>>>>>>>>> takes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is almost ideal, but not quite. I often have fields that would
>>>>>>>>> be best left unboxed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data DLLInt = DLL !Int !(IORef DLL) !(IORef DLL) | Nil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> was able to unpack the Int, but we lost that. We can currently at
>>>>>>>>> best point one of the entries of the SmallMutableArray# at a boxed or at a
>>>>>>>>> MutableByteArray# for all of our misc. data and shove the int in question in
>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> e.g. if I were to implement a hash-array-mapped-trie I need to
>>>>>>>>> store masks and administrivia as I walk down the tree. Having to go off to
>>>>>>>>> the side costs me the entire win from avoiding the first pointer chase.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, if like Ryan suggested, we had a heap object we could
>>>>>>>>> construct that had n words with unsafe access and m pointers to other heap
>>>>>>>>> objects, one that could put itself on the mutable list when any of those
>>>>>>>>> pointers changed then I could shed this last factor of two in all
>>>>>>>>> circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prototype
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Over the last few days I've put together a small prototype
>>>>>>>>> implementation with a few non-trivial imperative data structures for things
>>>>>>>>> like Tarjan's link-cut trees, the list labeling problem and
>>>>>>>>> order-maintenance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/ekmett/structs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Notable bits:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Data.Struct.Internal.LinkCut provides an implementation of link-cut
>>>>>>>>> trees in this style.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Data.Struct.Internal provides the rather horrifying guts that make
>>>>>>>>> it go fast.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once compiled with -O or -O2, if you look at the core, almost all
>>>>>>>>> the references to the LinkCut or Object data constructor get optimized away,
>>>>>>>>> and we're left with beautiful strict code directly mutating out underlying
>>>>>>>>> representation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least I'll take this email and turn it into a short
>>>>>>>>> article.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Edward
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Simon Peyton Jones
>>>>>>>>> <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just to say that I have no idea what is going on in this thread.
>>>>>>>>> What is ArrayArray?  What is the issue in general?  Is there a ticket? Is
>>>>>>>>> there a wiki page?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it’s important, an ab-initio wiki page + ticket would be a good
>>>>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>>> Edward Kmett
>>>>>>>>> Sent: 21 August 2015 05:25
>>>>>>>>> To: Manuel M T Chakravarty
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Marlow; ghc-devs
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: ArrayArrays
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When (ab)using them for this purpose, SmallArrayArray's would be
>>>>>>>>> very handy as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Consider right now if I have something like an order-maintenance
>>>>>>>>> structure I have:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data Upper s = Upper {-# UNPACK #-} !(MutableByteArray s) {-#
>>>>>>>>> UNPACK #-} !(MutVar s (Upper s)) {-# UNPACK #-} !(MutVar s (Upper s))
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data Lower s = Lower {-# UNPACK #-} !(MutVar s (Upper s)) {-#
>>>>>>>>> UNPACK #-} !(MutableByteArray s) {-# UNPACK #-} !(MutVar s (Lower s)) {-#
>>>>>>>>> UNPACK #-} !(MutVar s (Lower s))
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The former contains, logically, a mutable integer and two pointers,
>>>>>>>>> one for forward and one for backwards. The latter is basically the same
>>>>>>>>> thing with a mutable reference up pointing at the structure above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the heap this is an object that points to a structure for the
>>>>>>>>> bytearray, and points to another structure for each mutvar which each point
>>>>>>>>> to the other 'Upper' structure. So there is a level of indirection smeared
>>>>>>>>> over everything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So this is a pair of doubly linked lists with an upward link from
>>>>>>>>> the structure below to the structure above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Converted into ArrayArray#s I'd get
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data Upper s = Upper (MutableArrayArray# s)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> w/ the first slot being a pointer to a MutableByteArray#, and the
>>>>>>>>> next 2 slots pointing to the previous and next previous objects, represented
>>>>>>>>> just as their MutableArrayArray#s. I can use sameMutableArrayArray# on these
>>>>>>>>> for object identity, which lets me check for the ends of the lists by tying
>>>>>>>>> things back on themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and below that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data Lower s = Lower (MutableArrayArray# s)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is similar, with an extra MutableArrayArray slot pointing up to an
>>>>>>>>> upper structure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can then write a handful of combinators for getting out the slots
>>>>>>>>> in question, while it has gained a level of indirection between the wrapper
>>>>>>>>> to put it in * and the MutableArrayArray# s in #, that one can be basically
>>>>>>>>> erased by ghc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unlike before I don't have several separate objects on the heap for
>>>>>>>>> each thing. I only have 2 now. The MutableArrayArray# for the object itself,
>>>>>>>>> and the MutableByteArray# that it references to carry around the mutable
>>>>>>>>> int.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only pain points are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.) the aforementioned limitation that currently prevents me from
>>>>>>>>> stuffing normal boxed data through a SmallArray or Array into an ArrayArray
>>>>>>>>> leaving me in a little ghetto disconnected from the rest of Haskell,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2.) the lack of SmallArrayArray's, which could let us avoid the
>>>>>>>>> card marking overhead. These objects are all small, 3-4 pointers wide. Card
>>>>>>>>> marking doesn't help.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alternately I could just try to do really evil things and convert
>>>>>>>>> the whole mess to SmallArrays and then figure out how to unsafeCoerce my way
>>>>>>>>> to glory, stuffing the #'d references to the other arrays directly into the
>>>>>>>>> SmallArray as slots, removing the limitation  we see here by aping the
>>>>>>>>> MutableArrayArray# s API, but that gets really really dangerous!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty much willing to sacrifice almost anything on the altar
>>>>>>>>> of speed here, but I'd like to be able to let the GC move them and collect
>>>>>>>>> them which rules out simpler Ptr and Addr based solutions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Edward
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty
>>>>>>>>> <chak at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That’s an interesting idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Manuel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Would it be possible to add unsafe primops to add Array# and
>>>>>>>>> > SmallArray# entries to an ArrayArray#? The fact that the ArrayArray# entries
>>>>>>>>> > are all directly unlifted avoiding a level of indirection for the containing
>>>>>>>>> > structure is amazing, but I can only currently use it if my leaf level data
>>>>>>>>> > can be 100% unboxed and distributed among ByteArray#s. It'd be nice to be
>>>>>>>>> > able to have the ability to put SmallArray# a stuff down at the leaves to
>>>>>>>>> > hold lifted contents.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I accept fully that if I name the wrong type when I go to access
>>>>>>>>> > one of the fields it'll lie to me, but I suppose it'd do that if i tried to
>>>>>>>>> > use one of the members that held a nested ArrayArray# as a ByteArray#
>>>>>>>>> > anyways, so it isn't like there is a safety story preventing this.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I've been hunting for ways to try to kill the indirection
>>>>>>>>> > problems I get with Haskell and mutable structures, and I could shoehorn a
>>>>>>>>> > number of them into ArrayArrays if this worked.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Right now I'm stuck paying for 2 or 3 levels of unnecessary
>>>>>>>>> > indirection compared to c/java and this could reduce that pain to just 1
>>>>>>>>> > level of unnecessary indirection.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > -Edward
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> > ghc-devs mailing list
>>>>>>>>> > ghc-devs at haskell.org
>>>>>>>>> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> ghc-devs mailing list
>>>>>>>>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>