I think the difference between the inlinable and specialize pragma is whether the specialization needs to be driven by the call site or not. If you have a handful of known types you want to specialize for up front, you can use the specialize pragma. If the set is large or unknown (like in the case of container keys/value, the inlinable pragma does the right thing.)
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Aggressive inlining is one way, but specialisation ought to get a long > way, and makes fewer copies of the specialised code. > > > > It’s hard to help without a concrete example > > > > Simon > > > > *From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Conal > Elliott > *Sent:* 28 January 2016 00:05 > *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org > *Subject:* More aggressive dictionary removal? > > > > I'm looking for pointers on getting GHC to eliminate more overloading & > polymorphism. I think this sort of thing mainly happens in the Specialise > module. The default GHC flag settings get me a couple levels of > monomorphization and dictionary removal, but I want to go further. I've > tried -fspecialise-aggressively, but it didn't seem to make a difference, > and I haven't found this flag described in the GHC user's guide. Anyone > have pointers to more information? > > Thanks, - Conal > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
