Hi, Am Dienstag, den 17.04.2012, 22:17 +0200 schrieb Iustin Pop: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 04:06:25PM -0400, Michael Alan Dorman wrote: > > Iustin Pop <[email protected]> writes: > > > As far as I understand, it's not symbol mangling, but the fact that > > > dynamic linking (without recompilation) prevents the optimiser from > > > doing its full work (e.g. inlining across modules, etc.). > > > > Err, now I could be wrong, but I didn't think GHC was doing link-time > > optimization---and if it's not, ISTM that inlining across modules, > > whether static or dynamic is infeasible, no? > > I might be wrong, but as far as I understand it, it's not link-time > optimisation, but rather compile time. If the library exports an > (inlinable) function, and ghc decides to inline it, then the program > will get the inline copy. So in this mode, it is across modules. > > Of course, I could be very wrong :)
you could, but you are not :-). This is exactly what happens. And note that the inlined code of course uses the rest of the exposing module „from the inside“ and may, for example, use non-exported function. Therefore even changing the internals of the module will change the interface. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer [email protected] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [email protected] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
