[GHC] #14806: Officially sanction certain unsafeCoerce applications with unboxed unary tuples
GHC
ghc-devs at haskell.org
Tue Feb 13 21:08:08 UTC 2018
#14806: Officially sanction certain unsafeCoerce applications with unboxed unary
tuples
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dfeuer | Owner: (none)
Type: feature | Status: new
request |
Priority: normal | Milestone: 8.6.1
Component: Documentation | Version: 8.2.2
Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple
Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown
Unknown/Multiple |
Test Case: | Blocked By:
Blocking: | Related Tickets:
Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
It seems that it should be okay to `unsafeCoerce` between types that wrap
certain things in unboxed unary tuples and ones that do not. For example,
{{{#!hs
unsafeCoerce :: (A -> B) -> A -> (# B #)
unsafeCoerce :: ((# A #) -> B) -> A -> B
}}}
Generally, I believe `unsafeCoerce :: E1 -> E2` should be okay when the
only differences are in what is wrapped in an unboxed unary tuple and both
of the following hold:
1. Each new unary tuple wrapper in `E2` is in a positive position.
2. Each new unary tuple wrapper in `E1` is in a negative position.
Semantically,
{{{#!hs
unsafeCoerce :: (A -> B) -> A -> (# B #)
=
\f a -> let !fa = f a in (# fa #)
unsafeCoerce :: ((# A #) -> B) -> A -> B
=
\f !a -> f a
}}}
Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, is this something the
developers would be willing to commit to and document? The first version
in particular (a new unary tuple wrapper in positive position in the
result) would be very useful for reducing both source code and generated
code size in libraries supporting both strict and lazy operations.
--
Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/14806>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler
More information about the ghc-tickets
mailing list