are you quite sure you did –dverbose-core2core –ddump-occur-anal? I see none of that output in the file.
Regardless of the flags you set for the primop, I’m surprised that the invariant is invalidated. Should not happen. As well as the revised output, could you enclose a snippet of primops.txt.pp for prefetchValue1,2,3# S From: Carter Schonwald [mailto:carter.schonw...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 November 2014 06:47 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: Edward Kmett; ghc-devs@haskell.org; Joachim Breitner Subject: Re: let app invariant failure, HALP Re: how to write a ghc primop that acts on an unevaluated argument? ok attached is the log of ./inplace/bin/ghc-stage2 codetester.hs -O2 -dcore-lint -fforce-recomp -ddump-simpl -ddump-to-file -dverbose-core2core -ddump-occur-anal -ddump-inlinings > output ^&1 the relevant snippet is bellow. It looks like the Float-Out transformation is what tripping it. That said, reading through what the semantics are implied by has_side_effects = True, the prefetch* family of operations ARE side effectful with respect the fact that they DO modify the CPU cache in a way that changes what memory locations are in various levels of CPU cache, so despite seeming read-like, they are modifying the state of the system, just in a way that is ONLY visible wrt the performance characteristics/runtime of the resulting program. specifically, Duplication, Floating out, and Specultive evaluation all change *when* the prefetch runs and changes the CPU state, and Discard means this "mutation" of the CPU cache state would not happen. if prefetch was pure semantically (ie equiv to a -> () ) , they'd just be no op, they're exclusively a tool for performance engineering, and accordingly when and where they appear in code matters! i'm more than happy to write out a more detailed version of this explanation somewhere if you like. -Carter """" *** Core Linted result of Simplifier: *** Float out(FOS {Lam = Just 0, Consts = True, OverSatApps = True}): *** Core Linted result of Float out(FOS {Lam = Just 0, Consts = True, OverSatApps = True}): *** Core Lint errors : in result of Float out(FOS {Lam = Just 0, Consts = True, OverSatApps = True}) *** <no location info>: Warning: In the expression: prefetchValue2# @ [Char] @ RealWorld lvl_s3Oi (prefetchValue1# @ Int @ RealWorld lvl_s3Oj (prefetchAddr3# @ RealWorld ds1_a3zg 0 ds_a3zf)) This argument does not satisfy the let/app invariant: prefetchValue1# @ Int @ RealWorld lvl_s3Oj """ On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com<mailto:carter.schonw...@gmail.com>> wrote: huh, apparently i was mixing up '-' and some other similar dash character, time to let my rebuild of ghc go through then try gain :) On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com<mailto:carter.schonw...@gmail.com>> wrote: when i run ./inplace/bin/ghc-stage2 codetester.hs -O2 -dcore-lint -S -fforce-recomp -ddump-simpl -ddump-to-file –dverbose-core2core –ddump-occur-anal –ddump-inlinings i get target ‘–dverbose-core2core’ is not a module name or a source file what am I doing wrong in this CLI invocation? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: Carter That smells wrong to me. These flags have a very carefully defined meaning; see Note [PrimOp can_fail and has_side_effects] in PrimOp.lhs If you say it has side effects when it doesn’t, you’ll confuse your successor reading the code in five years time. Better to find out what is going on and why. Might you do that? What transformation invalidates the let/app invariant? Make a small test case, use –dverbose-core2core –ddump-occur-anal –ddump-inlinings. I would far rather that than install a land-mine in the code. Simon From: Carter Schonwald [mailto:carter.schonw...@gmail.com<mailto:carter.schonw...@gmail.com>] Sent: 24 November 2014 00:54 To: Edward Kmett Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>; Simon Peyton Jones; Joachim Breitner Subject: Re: let app invariant failure, HALP Re: how to write a ghc primop that acts on an unevaluated argument? woot, solved it, at least in a way thats OK for now. if I mark the prefetchValue operations as has_side_effects=True, the core lint failure goes away! I'm not sure if thats the right semantics in the long term, but it does give me a simple way to make sure it works safely for 7.10 pardon all the noise -Carter On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com<mailto:carter.schonw...@gmail.com>> wrote: ok, i'm getting a let/app invariant failure when i build my test case with O1 or O2 but not without http://lpaste.net/114881 any help would be appreciated on how to address that On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com<mailto:carter.schonw...@gmail.com>> wrote: yup, i have that! wrapFetch prefetchValue0# (error "this shouldn't get evaluated") in the test suite! in contrast wrapFetch prefetchValue0# $! (error "this shouldn't get evaluated") does explode shall I add a "should fail" test with the latter? (it doesn't seem worthwhile) On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Edward Kmett <ekm...@gmail.com<mailto:ekm...@gmail.com>> wrote: Maybe test for laziness in the argument by just putting something in that goes boom when forced, e.g. 'undefined'? On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com<mailto:carter.schonw...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hey All, as part of trying to get some fixups for how prefetch works into 7.10, i'm adding a "prefetchValue" primop that prefetchs the memory location of a lifted heap value namely several operations of the following form primop PrefetchValueOp1 "prefetchValue1#" GenPrimOp a -> State# s -> State# s with strictness = { \ _arity -> mkClosedStrictSig [botDmd, topDmd] topRes } I'd like some feedback on the strictness information design by someone who's familiar with how that piece of GHC. the idea being that prefetchValue is lazy in its polymorphic argument (it doesn't force it, it just does a prefetch on the heap location, which may or may not be evaluated). https://phabricator.haskell.org/D350 is the code in question. And i *believe* i'm testing for being lazy in that argument correctly. thoughts? many thanks! -Carter _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto: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
