Ok, I buy the argument that if we're already compiling everything, we
shouldn't have to re-typecheck it all in Haddock. Of course if you're
*not* already compiling everything, then the argument doesn't apply:
Haddock does support generating documentation from source files without
precompiling them, but I think if you ask the GHC API to load modules
with -fno-code it should do the right thing: load up the .hi files if
they're up to date, or typecheck the modules otherwise.
So I think having GHC spit out the docs as a side-effect of compilation
is fine, so long as we don't have to do all the Haddock processing
inside GHC itself, and provided this eliminates Haddock's own interface
files (which are a pain). If the docs go in the .hi file, then they
must go in a separate section that is lazy parsed - we already do this
for various other sections in the .hi file.
I don't think this is easy, but it's probably doable. The code that
attached docs to declarations is currently part of Haddock itself, so
perhaps this has to move into GHC.
Cheers,
Simon
On 20/03/2014 16:41, Edward Kmett wrote:
My knowledge of precisely how haddock works is somewhat fuzzy in that it
arises from a series of discussions a couple of years back.
My observation was mostly that I run 'cabal install' it goes through all
the modules building my .hi files, etc. Then I run cabal haddock and it
spends all that time redoing the same work, just to go through and get
at some information that we had right up until the moment we finished
building.
I'm not wedded to bolting the information into the .hi files being the
solution, but the idea that we could avoid redoing that work is
tantalizing. I'm mostly trying to avoid redoing all the same work twice
in the build cycle of the average user.
If there is an alternative strategy, such as, oh, I don't know, making
haddock able to hook in plugin-style late as we're generating the .hi
file to spit out what it needs to something else and
interrogate/rename/whatever it needs the rest of the GHC API I'd be
totally open that as well.
-Edward
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
<fuuze...@fuuzetsu.co.uk <mailto:fuuze...@fuuzetsu.co.uk>> wrote:
On 20/03/14 16:08, Edward Kmett wrote:
> One strong reason for considering at least including the haddocks
in the
> .hi files is build times.
>
> Currently if you have cabal configured to build and document
every package
> running hackage requires you to recompile your entire source tree
a second
> time to get information that we just dropped on the floor before
spitting
> out the .hi file.
>
> For most of the users of GHC this is a 50% difference in compile
times if
> they have cabal configured to generate haddocks.
>
> GHC doesn't have to understand the haddocks any more than it does
now to
> support it, just include the content.
>
> Haddock could then just go through and load the .hi files rather than
> starting from scratch with parsing and typechecking the entire
module,
> running template-haskell, just to get at the documentation.
>
> Any pythonesque :doc command support to me would be gravy.
>
> The reason I care at all is the build times. I regularly lose
minutes out
> of each build just to regenerate docs and wind up skipping
building them as
> much as I can get away with to avoid he pain.
>
> -Edward
>
>
As Simon M points out, we still have to run the renamer which seems to
be tightly bound with the type-checker. Where do you suggest the
sizeable performance increase would be coming from in this case? For all
the existing packages, we already read the docs from .haddock files so
there's no difference there. For new packages we have to type-check and
generate .haddock anyway so there's no difference there either.
It's not really about GHC having to know more about Haddock, it's about
Haddock having to use GHC anyway, whether the strinsg are embedded
or not.
--
Mateusz K.
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
