Solving the containers INLINE issue
Milan Straka
fox at ucw.cz
Fri Sep 24 08:49:03 EDT 2010
Hi,
> Can you also push this patch please?
>
> GHC 7.0 is going to warn about lambdas with incomplete patterns (if you have -fwarn-incomplete-patterns), such as
> \[x] -> e
>
> The Sequence module in 'containers' has a couple of occurrences, which the enclosed patch fixes. Of course there's no change in functionality, or even what code is generated.
>
> Can you apply please
Yes, I will correct it and push. I will look for other warnings as well.
Cheers,
Milan
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: libraries-bounces at haskell.org [mailto:libraries-bounces at haskell.org] On
> | Behalf Of Milan Straka
> | Sent: 24 September 2010 13:43
> | To: Simon Marlow
> | Cc: libraries
> | Subject: Re: Solving the containers INLINE issue
> |
> | Hi,
> | >> I suggest following variants for solving INLINE containers issues.
> | >> This solution will be short-term only, the long-term one will probably
> | >> go in the way of being able to specialize INLINABLE functions.
> | >>
> | >> a) remove all INLINEs
> | >> - smallest code
> | >> - up to 50% worse
> | >> - the numbers are in one of my previous mail
> | >>
> | >> b) leave all INLINEs
> | >> - biggest code
> | >> - fastest
> | >> - numbers are in one of my previous mail
> | >>
> | >> c) remove all INLINEs, but leave small amount of reasonable INLINEs
> | >> - on functions needing Ord, ie. Map and Set
> | >> - on 'small' functions only -- member, notMember, lookup*, insert*,
> | >> delete*, alter*, update*, adjust* and fold*
> | >> - set balance, balanceL and balanceR as NOINLINE (otherwise they
> | >> get inlined in insert*, making them too big)
> | >>
> | >> - smaller code bloat
> | >> - ghc binary is 1.4% larger than a) instead of 3.8% (which is
> | >> the amount b) is larger than a))
> | >> - map-properties test is 0.4% larger instead of 126%
> | >> - Map benchmark is actually 0.2% smaller (probably because of
> | >> balanceL and balanceR not inlining to insert)
> | >>
> | >> - reasonable performance. Here is the speedup of c) against b),
> | >> measured in % (+= several pct).
> | >> alter 2.73
> | >> delete 3.01
> | >> difference 3.76
> | >> insert -16.40
> | >> insertLookupWithKey empty -1.60
> | >> insertLookupWithKey update -2.32
> | >> insertLookupWithKey' empty -8.39
> | >> insertLookupWithKey' update -15.75
> | >> insertWith empty -16.04
> | >> insertWith update -15.26
> | >> insertWith' empty -17.13
> | >> insertWith' update -14.67
> | >> insertWithKey empty -15.35
> | >> insertWithKey update -13.01
> | >> insertWithKey' empty -17.09
> | >> insertWithKey' update -16.81
> | >> intersection -3.46
> | >> lookup 2.73
> | >> lookupIndex 0.52
> | >> union 0.66
> | >> update 3.28
> | >> updateLookupWithKey -1.44
> | >>
> | >> The only penalty is 15% loss on insert because of not inlining
> | >> balanceL and balanceR. But when doing so, the bloat is nearly as in b).
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> I vote for c) and have the patches ready.
> | >
> | > I suggest a slight modification of (c): for the functions on which you
> | > removed the INLINE pragmas, put INLINABLE on them. This way a client
> | > can still get the full speedup with suitable flags if they want.
> | >
> | > I'm still not really keen on having lookup inlined at every single call
> | > site, but I know it's a tradeoff and other people (maybe most people)
> | > care less about code size than I do.
> |
> | Well, if we have SPECIALISABLE in the future, we will remove the INLINE
> | pragmas and you will be happy again :)
> |
> | I will eat lunch and push the patches,
> | Milan
> | _______________________________________________
> | Libraries mailing list
> | Libraries at haskell.org
> | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
More information about the Libraries
mailing list