I think that would work, but I was looking for something more precise.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > What happens when you put NOINLINE on the function and compile with > -fexpose-all-unfoldings? Does that get the behavior you want? > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> It seems a little weird, but the internal data types can express it, so >> if you can make the front end do the right thing I’d be happy to take it. >> (Don’t forget the manual.)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> SImon**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* ghc-devs [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas >> Frisby >> *Sent:* 16 July 2013 21:29 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: defunctionalization**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Ah, I misread that TidyPgm function.It looks like if I build the >> CoreUnfolding, GHC will respect it. It's just rejecting the pragma >> combination in HsSyn.**** >> >> On Jul 16, 2013 3:22 PM, "Nicolas Frisby" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > I'd like to put a NOINLINE and an INLINABLE pragma on a binding. >> > >> > (I'm sketching a defunctionalization pass. I'd like the 'apply` routine >> RHS to make it into the interface file, but I do not want it to be inlined, >> since that'd undo the defunctionalization.) >> > >> > In other words, I'd like a CoreUnfolding value with the uf_guidance = >> UnfNever. >> > >> > It seems TidyPgm.addExternal ignores such a core unfolding. >> > >> > Would GHC consider a patch to make this work? >> > >> > Thanks.**** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> >> >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
