Why TcLclEnv and DsGblEnv need to store the same IORef for errors?
Alfredo Di Napoli
alfredo.dinapoli at gmail.com
Wed Mar 31 07:45:32 UTC 2021
Argh! I have just seen that I have a bunch of test failures related to my
MR (which, needless to say, it's still WIP).
run/T9140.run.stdout.normalised 2021-03-31 09:35:48.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,12 +1,4 @@
- You can't mix polymorphic and unlifted bindings: a = (# 1 #)
- Probable fix: add a type signature
- You can't mix polymorphic and unlifted bindings: a = (# 1, 3 #)
- Probable fix: add a type signature
So it looks like some diagnostic is now not being reported and, surprise
surprise, this was emitted from the DsM monad.
I have the suspect that indeed Richard was right (like he always is :) ) --
when we go from a DsM to a TcM monad (See `initDsTc`) for example, I think
we also need to carry into the new monad all the diagnostics we collected
This implies indeed a mutual dependency (as Simon pointed out, heh).
So I think my cunning plan of embedding is crumbling -- I suspect we would
end up with a type `TcRnDsMessage` which captures the dependency.
Sorry for not seeing it sooner!
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 08:05, Alfredo Di Napoli <alfredo.dinapoli at gmail.com>
> Morning all,
> *Richard*: sorry! Unfortunately MR !4798 is the cornerstone of this
> refactoring work but it's also gargantuan. Let's discuss a plan to attack
> it, but fundamentally there is a critical mass of changes that needs to
> happen atomically or it wouldn't make much sense, and alas this doesn't
> play in our favour when it comes to MR size and ease of review. However, to
> quickly reply to your remak: currently (for the sake of the
> "minimum-viable-product") I am trying to stabilise the external interfaces,
> by which I mean giving functions their final type signature while I do
> what's easiest to make things typecheck. In this phase what I think is the
> easiest is to wrap the majority of diagnostics into the `xxUnknownxx`
> constructor, and change them gradually later. A fair warning, though: you
> say "I would think that a DsMessage would later be wrapped in an
> envelope." This might be true for Ds messages (didn't actually invest any
> brain cycles to check that) but in general we have to turn a message into
> an envelope as soon as we have a chance to do so, because we need to grab
> the `SrcSpan` and the `DynFlags` *at the point of creation* of the
> diagnostics. Carrying around a message and make it bubble up at some random
> point won't be a good plan (even for Ds messages). Having said that, I
> clearly have very little knowledge about this area of GHC, so feel free to
> disagree :)
> *John*: Although it's a bit hard to predict how well this is going to
> evolve, my current embedding, to refresh everyone's memory, is the
> data DsMessage =
> DsUnknownMessage !DiagnosticMessage
> -- ^ Stop-gap constructor to ease the migration.
> | DsLiftedTcRnMessage !TcRnMessage
> -- ^ A diagnostic coming straight from the Typecheck-renamer.
> -- More messages added in the future, of course
> At first I thought this was the wrong way around, due to Simon's comment,
> but this actually creates pleasant external interfaces. To give you a bunch
> of examples from MR !4798:
> deSugar :: HscEnv -> ModLocation -> TcGblEnv -> IO (Messages DsMessage,
> Maybe ModGuts)
> deSugarExpr :: HscEnv -> LHsExpr GhcTc -> IO (Messages DsMessage, Maybe
> Note something interesting: the second function actually calls
> `runTcInteractive` inside the body, but thanks to the `DsLiftedTcRnMessage`
> we can still expose to the consumer an opaque `DsMessage` , which is what I
> would expect to see from a function called "deSugarExpr". Conversely, I
> would be puzzled to find those functions returning a `TcRnDsMessage`.
> Having said all of that, I am not advocating this design is "the best". I
> am sure we will iterate on it. I am just reporting that even this baseline
> seems to be decent from an API perspective :)
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 05:45, John Ericson <john.ericson at obsidian.systems>
>> Alfredo also replied to this pointing his embedding plan. I also prefer
>> that, because I really wish TH didn't smear together the phases so much.
>> Moreover, I hope with
>> - GHC proposals https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/412
>> / https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/243
>> - The parallelism work currently be planned in
>> we might actually have an opportunity/extra motivation to do that.
>> Splices and quotes will still induce intricate inter-phase dependencies,
>> but I hope that could be mediated by the driver rather than just baked into
>> each phase.
>> (One final step would be the "stuck macros" technique of
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUvKoG_V_U0 /
>> https://github.com/gelisam/klister, where TH splices would be able to
>> making "blocking queries" of the the compiler in ways that induce more of
>> these fine-grained dependencies.)
>> Anyways, while we could also do a "RnTsDsError" and split later, I hope
>> Alfredo's alternative of embedding won't be too much harder and prepare us
>> for these exciting areas of exploration.
>> On 3/30/21 10:14 AM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 2021, at 4:57 AM, Alfredo Di Napoli <
>> alfredo.dinapoli at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'll explore the idea of adding a second IORef.
>> Renaming/type-checking is already mutually recursive. (The renamer must
>> call the type-checker in order to rename -- that is, evaluate -- untyped
>> splices. I actually can't recall why the type-checker needs to call the
>> renamer.) So we will have a TcRnError. Now we see that the desugarer ends
>> up mixed in, too. We could proceed how Alfredo suggests, by adding a second
>> IORef. Or we could just make TcRnDsError (maybe renaming that).
>> What's the disadvantage? Clients will have to potentially know about all
>> the different error forms with either approach (that is, using my combined
>> type or using multiple IORefs). The big advantage to separating is maybe
>> module dependencies? But my guess is that the dependencies won't be an
>> issue here, due to the fact that these components are already leaning on
>> each other. Maybe the advantage is just in having smaller types? Maybe.
>> I don't have a great sense as to what to do here, but I would want a
>> clear reason that e.g. the TcRn monad would have two IORefs, while other
>> monads will work with GhcMessage (instead of a whole bunch of IORefs).
>> ghc-devs mailing listghc-devs at haskell.orghttp://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs