| > let {
| > n :: GHC.Prim.Int#
| > Str: DmdType
| > n = GHC.Prim.*# 4 ww3
| > } in
| > case GHC.Prim.<# n 0 of wild1 {
| >
| > Is this really a lazy let, or is there some magic going on
| > that means it is actually done strictly as it's an Int#?
|
| Yes, this let will be done strictly. Indeed, any let which is sure to
| be demanded (according to the Demand value of the Id) will turn into a
| case in STG, and similarly for an expression in the argument position
of
| a strict function call.
|
| I believe the motivation was that this makes things much easier for
the
| simplifier, but Simon PJ will be able to elaborate I'm sure.
Yes, that's right. A strict let, where the RHS is just a primop that
can't fault, is left as a let rather than being expressed as a case,
because it can be 'floated' easily to somewhere else, or inlined. A
'case' says "do this here and now" and is much less mobile.
But when the type is unboxed, the let is indeed done eagerly. It's a
slight hack really. We could have
Rec
NonRec
Unboxed
as three forms of binding, but currently the latter are combined into
NonRec and distinguished by type.
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
