Dataflow analysis for Cmm

Michal Terepeta michal.terepeta at
Mon Oct 17 13:12:27 UTC 2016

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57 AM Jan Stolarek <jan.stolarek at>

> Michał,
> Dataflow module could indeed use cleanup. I have made two attempts at this
> in the past but I don't
> think any of them was merged - see [1] and [2]. [2] was mostly
> type-directed simplifications. It
> would be nice to have this included in one form or another. It sounds like
> you also have a more
> in-depth refactoring in mind. Personally as long as it is semantically
> correct I think it will be
> a good thing. I would especially support removing dead code that we don't
> really use.
> [1]
> [2]

Ok, I'll have a look at this!
(did you intend to send two identical links?)

> Second question: how could we merge this? (...)
> I'm not sure if I understand. The end result after merging will be exactly
> the same, right? Are
> you asking for advice what is the best way of doing this from a technical
> point if view? I would
> simply edit the existing module. Introducing a temporary second module
> seems like unnecessary
> extra work and perhaps complicating the patch review.

Yes, the end result would be the same - I'm merely asking what would be
preferred by GHC devs (i.e., I don't know how fine grained patches to GHC
usually are).

> > I’m happy to export the code to Phab if you prefer - I wasn’t sure what’s
> > the recommended workflow for code that’s not ready for review…
> This is OK but please remember to set status of revision to "Planned
> changes" after uploading it
> to Phab so it doesn't sit in reviewing queue.

Cool, I didn't know about the "Planned changes" status.
Thanks for mentioning it!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list