Yes, inl_act :: Activation controls what inlining takes place
inl_inline :: InlineSpec says what the user originally wrote
Perhaps I should beef up the comments.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben
| Gamari
| Sent: 12 February 2017 17:48
| To: [email protected]
| Subject: Re: Convincing GHC not to produce unfoldings during
| simplification
|
| Ben Gamari <[email protected]> writes:
|
| > I have observed that the floated bindings are not included in the
| > interface file with -O0. Moreover, the core2core output clearly shows
| > the unfoldings being added after the first simplifier phase. I haven't
| > yet determined where in the simplifier these unfoldings are being
| > introduced, but if anyone has ideas I'd love to hear them.
| >
| Ahhh, the inline pragma I was applying was wrong; I wanted
| neverInlinePragma but instead rolled my own (incorrect) version of it.
|
| It's interesting that neverInlinePragma has a NeverActive activation with
| EmptyInlineSpec. My intuition had lead me to an AlwaysActive activation
| of a NoInline InlineSpec.
|
| Cheers,
|
| - Ben
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
