Lennart Augustsson wrote:
True, if there can be indirections then that's bad news.
That would make strict fields much less efficient.
But I don't see why indirections should be needed. Simon?
This kind of thing has always been a problem for GHC, and IIRC hbc does/did
better here.
I don't know for sure whether we guarantee not to point to an indirection
from a strict constructur field. I imagine it wouldn't be hard to arrange,
but it is another invariant we'd have to maintain throughout the Core->Core
phases. The real problem is that strictness is not represented in the type
system, so we have no way to check that these kind of invariants are being
respected.
Cheers,
Simon
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Jan-Willem Maessen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I totally agree. Getting the value of the field should just evaluate
x and then use a pointer indirection; there should be no conditional
jumps involved in getting the value.
GHC is just doing the wrong thing.
Can indirection nodes occur in this context? [I'd think not, but it depends
on what pointer we're storing when we force the thunk in the constructor.]
I could see the need for the test if indirection handling is required.
-Jan
-- Lennart
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Tyson Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wednesday 15 October 2008 10:48:26 you wrote:
Strictness does not imply unboxing.
To see why not, think about the fact that unboxing breaks sharing. By
keeping the pointer-indirection in place, we can share even strict
fields between related values.
I believe I realize that. What I was wondering about was the fact that
it
seemed to think the pointer might be to a thunk (instead of constructor
closure). Doesn't the strictness flag mean the following assembler would
work
sni_info:
movq 7(%rbx),%rbx
movq $snj_info,(%rbp)
jmp snj_info
(which could be cleaned up further by combining it with snj_info) instead
of
sni_info:
movq 7(%rbx),%rbx
movq $snj_info,(%rbp)
testq $7,%rbx
jne snj_info
jmp *(%rbx)
(i.e., the whole test if it is a thunk and conditionally evaluate it bit
is
unnecessary due to constructor the strictness flag).
Cheers! -Tyson
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
