[GHC] #13224: Rules and join points
GHC
ghc-devs at haskell.org
Wed Feb 1 22:07:32 UTC 2017
#13224: Rules and join points
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: lukemaurer | Owner: lukemaurer
Type: bug | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone:
Component: Compiler | Version: 8.0.1
Keywords: JoinPoints | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple
Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown
Unknown/Multiple |
Test Case: | Blocked By:
Blocking: | Related Tickets:
Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
From Note [Rules and join points] in `OccurAnal`:
Things get fiddly with rules. Suppose we have:
{{{
let j :: Int -> Int
j y = 2 * y
k :: Int -> Int -> Int
{-# RULES "SPEC k 0" k 0 = j #-}
k x y = x + 2 * y
in ...
}}}
Now suppose that both j and k appear only as saturated tail calls in the
body.
Thus we would like to make them both join points. The rule complicates
matters,
though, as its RHS has an unapplied occurrence of j. //However//, if we
were to
eta-expand the rule, all would be well:
{{{
{-# RULES "SPEC k 0" forall a. k 0 a = j a #-}
}}}
So conceivably we could notice that a potential join point would have an
"undersaturated" rule and account for it. This would mean we could make
something that's been specialised a join point, for instance. But local
bindings
are rarely specialised, and being overly cautious about rules only
costs us anything when, for some `j`:
* Before specialisation, `j` has non-tail calls, so it can't be a join
point.
* During specialisation, `j` gets specialised and thus acquires rules.
* Sometime afterward, the non-tail calls to `j` disappear (as dead code,
say),
and so now `j` //could// become a join point.
This appears to be very rare in practice. TODO Perhaps we should gather
statistics to be sure.
--
Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13224>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler
More information about the ghc-tickets
mailing list