On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:55 AM, David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 Jan Stolarek wrote: > >> >> 2. First pass of full laziness is followed by floating in. At that stage >> we have not yet run the >> demand analysis and yet the code that does the floating-in checks whether >> a binder is one-shot >> (FloatIn.okToFloatInside called by FloatIn.fiExpr AnnLam case). This >> suggests that cardinality >> analysis is done earlier (but when?) and that demand analysis is not the >> same thing as >> cardinality analysis. >> > > If you're looking at super-recent code, that could be Joachim Breitner's > work. He's exposed the one-shot stuff at the Haskell level with the > experimental magic oneShot function, intended primarily for use in the > libraries to make foldl-as-foldr and related things be analyzed more > reliably. The old GHC arity analysis combined with his Call Arity get > almost everything right, but there are occasional corner cases where things > go wrong, and when they do the results tend to be extremely bad. > > Joachim's work looks like neat stuff. I've only been scanning those emails, but I recall mention of interface files. Jan, would your question #2 be addressed by that information being imported from interface files? With separate compilation, phase ordering because more nuanced. > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
