[Haskell-cafe] vector stream fusion, inlining and compilation
batterseapower at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 10 11:41:43 EST 2010
This is my understanding:
Old story (GHC 6.12.1 (?) and below):
1) Function bodies are only optimised if they are not marked INLINE.
The assumption is that INLINE bodies will be inlined and then
optimised at the point where they are inlined.
2) Unfoldings are exported in .hi files for functions if they are
nonrecursive and "small enough" or marked INLINE
New story (GHC HEAD):
1) Function bodies are optimised regardless of whether they are marked
INLINE or not.
2) Unfoldings are exported in .hi files for functions if they are
nonrecursive and "small enough" or marked INLINE, but the unfolding
that is exported is the _unoptimised_ version!
- It is important to export the unoptimised version because the
optimisation may destroy information we would have relied upon in rule
matching. E.g. the optimised version of a list producer will not use
"build", but we need to be able to spot the "build" in rules to do
The new story is much more robust - adding INLINE pragmas should be a
much safer thing to do now, because even if the function is not
inlined you will still get an optimised definition for that function.
Other relevant points:
a) There is a new flag, -fexpose-all-unfoldings, in GHC HEAD. This
does what you want - compile vector-space with this flag on and
unfoldings for everything will show up in the .hi file, with no INLINE
annotations necessary. This was intended for supercompilers (such as
the one I'm working on :-) but you can probably use for this as well.
b) GHC already treats RULES differently for the purposes of inlining.
It is very eager to inline into the arguments of a function you have
RULES for, because doing so may let it spot extra chances for the rule
Hope that helps,
On 10 March 2010 16:23, Jake McArthur <jake.mcarthur at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a transcript from a conversation I had with Conal on IRC.
> tl;dr: <conal> cross-module inlining is only possible because ghc
> stashes a definition in a .hi, iuuc. i'm suggesting that the stashed
> definition either (a) never include further inlinings, or (b) be
> augmented by such a definition.
> Full transcript:
> 11:23:10 <conal> jmcarthur: i'm wondering what to do about INLINE
> pragmas for vector-space and other libraries. i love optimizability
> and clean/elegant/terse code. and i don't know how to resolve that
> 11:23:21 <jmcarthur> conal: yeah, me either. it's annoying
> 11:23:41 <jmcarthur> conal: a compiler feature to do it more
> succinctly would be nice, if we can come up with one
> 11:23:52 <conal> jmcarthur: i'm thinking exactly the same
> 11:24:04 <conal> jmcarthur: a ghc flag that does what you did manually
> 11:24:41 <jmcarthur> conal: yeah, but we still need to do better than
> inlining *all* functions. we need to be able to tell it we want it to
> inline all functions satisfying some predicate or something
> 11:25:07 <jmcarthur> like, there's no point in forcing to inline
> functions having absolutely nothing to do with vector, for example
> 11:25:18 <conal> jmcarthur: i wonder. ghc already has some
> heuristics. do we really want anything different/unusual?
> 11:25:26 <jmcarthur> then again, combinators that don't inline and get
> used in a vector function later might still be annoying
> 11:26:08 <conal> jmcarthur: maybe some kind of demand-driven mechanism
> 11:26:21 <jmcarthur> conal: that's what i was thinking would be best
> 11:26:28 <conal> jmcarthur: ie pull inlining rather than push them.
> or some combo.
> 11:27:21 <conal> jmcarthur: i don't think this issue is specific to
> either vector fusion or to the vector-space package.
> 11:27:28 <jmcarthur> conal: actually, this is about rewrite rules more
> than inlining
> 11:27:40 <jmcarthur> conal: maybe if we focus on the rewrite rules we
> can think of something nicer
> 11:27:46 <conal> jmcarthur: ah, yeah.
> 11:28:32 <conal> jmcarthur: have you talked with they ghc guys about
> this issue? i wonder what practice they'd advise for use with the
> current ghc
> 11:28:54 <jmcarthur> i have not
> 11:29:47 <conal> jmcarthur: how did the inlining/rewriting concern
> arise for vector fusion and the vector-space package?
> 11:30:16 <jmcarthur> conal: i assume you read the email i linked to?
> 11:30:27 <jmcarthur> this one:
> 11:30:34 <conal> jmcarthur: yes. i'l reread now.
> 11:31:03 <jmcarthur> conal: "in general, you have to add INLINE
> pragmas in such cases if you want to be sure your code fuses. A
> general-purpose mechanism for handling situations like this
> automatically would be great but we haven't found a good one so far."
> 11:31:14 <jmcarthur> i think the most relevant line
> 11:31:49 <conal> jmcarthur: thx. and the difficulty (with current
> ghc) is specifically cross-module, right?
> 11:32:00 <jmcarthur> conal: that is my understanding
> 11:32:10 <jmcarthur> but perhaps it is more complex
> 11:32:49 <conal> jmcarthur: if so, i wonder if ghc could be fixed to
> inline between modules according to the same heuristics as within a
> 11:34:36 <jmcarthur> conal: maybe.
> 11:35:34 <conal> jmcarthur: part of my discomfort is that i don't know
> whether the INLINE directives are more helpful or more harmful under
> all uses. if they were generally helpful, i imagine ghc would do it.
> 11:56:56 <jmcarthur> me too
> 11:57:46 <conal> jmcarthur: i just found that haskell-cafe thread and
> added a reply.
> 11:58:31 <conal> jmcarthur: hoping that don, roman, etc will have some
> ideas in addressing that discomfort.
> 12:09:58 <jmcarthur> conal: apparently the real trick is that GHC will
> not inline functions in a function that is annotated INLINE, meaning
> that rewrite rules can fire on the outermost rule before firing on
> inner ones
> 12:10:30 <jmcarthur> conal: i think it would be nice if we could come
> up with a way for rewrite rules to affect GHC's inliner
> 12:10:44 <conal> jmcarthur: yeah. maybe INLINE ought to be decomposed
> into two sub-meanings.
> 12:10:45 <jmcarthur> then it would only happen when necessary
> 12:11:17 <jmcarthur> well, the fact that it forces that function to be
> inlined is also good though
> 12:11:33 <jmcarthur> which is apparently important across module boundaries
> 12:11:45 <conal> jmcarthur: maybe ghc could *never* inline functions
> into an inline body. and then do some caching to avoid redundant
> 12:12:00 <jmcarthur> perhaps. still leaves the cross-module inlining
> issue though
> 12:12:32 <jmcarthur> i suspect this is also architectural
> 12:12:44 <jmcarthur> ghc doesn't know if it will inline a function
> across a module boundary in advance
> 12:12:52 <jmcarthur> therefore it goes ahead and inlines into it
> 12:13:04 <jmcarthur> *inlines other functions into it
> 12:13:31 <conal> jmcarthur: i don't understand how module boundaries
> come into play
> 12:14:40 <jmcarthur> conal: my suspicion is that because ghc builds
> modules separately it can't know whether a function will be inlined in
> another module, so if it's not marked INLINE it feels free to inline
> other functions into it as it pleases
> 12:15:17 <jmcarthur> conal: but a function marked INLINE is clearly
> going to be inlined everywhere it's used, so ghc can go ahead and
> avoid inlining into it
> 12:17:07 <jmcarthur> conal: perhaps a way around it would be to avoid
> making inlining decisions about exported functions at all until link
> 12:17:20 <jmcarthur> but that would stink a little
> 12:17:24 <conal> jmcarthur: maybe so. sounds like a place for
> improving ghc. it makes an invalid assumption: that a def not marked
> INLINE won't be inlined.
> 12:17:25 <conal> jmcarthur: instead, it could be prepared to inline elsewhere.
> 12:17:25 <conal> jmcarthur: i'm confused though. ghc *is* prepared to
> inline elsewhere.
> 12:18:23 <jmcarthur> conal: well, it's not that ghc makes an invalid
> assumption, i think. it just doesn't take certain steps unless you
> tell it to explicitly
> 12:18:58 <conal> jmcarthur: the invalid assumption i mean is that it's
> not worth saving an inline-and-optimze-friendly def.
> 12:19:43 <conal> jmcarthur: cross-module inlining is only possible
> because ghc stashes a definition in a .hi, iuuc. i'm suggesting that
> the stashed definition either (a) never include further inlinings, or
> (b) be augmented by such a definition.
> 12:20:07 <jmcarthur> conal: i agree with that suggestion, if our
> understanding of how it works is correct
> 12:20:54 <conal> jmcarthur: okay. let's take this understanding into
> the haskell-cafe discussion and see what evolves. okay?
> - Jake
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell-Cafe