Monomorphizing GHC Core?

[Conal Elliott]

Thanks, Ed. It hadn't occurred to me that defunctionalization might be
useful for monomorphization. Do you know of a connection?

I'm using a perfect leaf tree type similar to the one you mentioned but
indexed by depth:

> data Tree :: (* -> *) -> Nat -> * -> * where
>   L :: a -> Tree k 0 a
>   B :: Tree k n (k a) -> Tree k (1+n) a

Similarly for "top-down" perfect leaf trees:

> data Tree :: (* -> *) -> Nat -> * -> * where
>   L :: a -> Tree k 0 a
>   B :: k (Tree k n a) -> Tree k (1+n) a

This way, after monomorphization, there won't be any sums remaining.

  -- Conal


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:

> Might you have more success with a Reynolds style defunctionalization pass
> for the polymorphic recursion you can't eliminate?
>
> Then you wouldn't have to rule out things like
>
> data Complete a = S (Complete (a,a)) | Z a
>
> which don't pass that test.
>
> -Edward
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net> wrote:
>
>>  Has anyone worked on a monomorphizing transformation for GHC Core? I
>> understand that polymorphic recursion presents a challenge, and I do indeed
>> want to work with polymorphic recursion but only on types for which the
>> recursion bottoms out statically (i.e., each recursive call is on a smaller
>> type). I'm aiming at writing high-level polymorphic code and generating
>> monomorphic code on unboxed values. This work is part of a project for
>> compiling Haskell to hardware, described on my blog (http://conal.net).
>>
>> Thanks,  - Conal
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
>> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20140619/cb05a311/attachment.html>