RE: new pragma name ideas? (was: defunctionalization)
So the idea here to make it possible to have a function that can be specialized at certain types, and explicitly inlined at specific use sites, but ghc otherwise will not inline it? Cool! That's almost exactly what INLINABLE means. I agree that SPECIALISABLE would have been a better name. The only difference between INLINABLE and what you say is that GHC is *free* to inline an INLINABLE if it thinks it'd be a good idea, whereas you want a promise that it will never do so. (I'm not sure why.) But they are pretty close already. My suggestion * Rename INLINABLE to SPECIALISABLE (deprecating the former) * Allow SPECIALISABLE in conjunction with the existing NOINLINE Simon From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Frisby Sent: 18 July 2013 23:19 To: ghc-devs@haskell.org Subject: new pragma name ideas? (was: defunctionalization) On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Carter Schonwald carter.schonw...@gmail.commailto:carter.schonw...@gmail.com wrote: So the idea here to make it possible to have a function that can be specialized at certain types, and explicitly inlined at specific use sites, but ghc otherwise will not inline it? Cool! one thought: might it be simpler to instead have something like EXPLICIT-INLINABLE, rather that requiring the juxtaposition of two pragmas which seem contradictory? I like that idea. How about SPECIALISABLE? This is a nod to the possibility that GHC might someday automatically specialize an imported function. Or EXPOSE? Or EXTERNAL? Bikeshed activate! ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
RE: defunctionalization
It seems a little weird, but the internal data types can express it, so if you can make the front end do the right thing I'd be happy to take it. (Don't forget the manual.) SImon From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Frisby Sent: 16 July 2013 21:29 To: ghc-devs@haskell.org Subject: Re: defunctionalization Ah, I misread that TidyPgm function.It looks like if I build the CoreUnfolding, GHC will respect it. It's just rejecting the pragma combination in HsSyn. On Jul 16, 2013 3:22 PM, Nicolas Frisby nicolas.fri...@gmail.commailto:nicolas.fri...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to put a NOINLINE and an INLINABLE pragma on a binding. (I'm sketching a defunctionalization pass. I'd like the 'apply` routine RHS to make it into the interface file, but I do not want it to be inlined, since that'd undo the defunctionalization.) In other words, I'd like a CoreUnfolding value with the uf_guidance = UnfNever. It seems TidyPgm.addExternal ignores such a core unfolding. Would GHC consider a patch to make this work? Thanks. ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Re: defunctionalization
What happens when you put NOINLINE on the function and compile with -fexpose-all-unfoldings? Does that get the behavior you want? On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.comwrote: It seems a little weird, but the internal data types can express it, so if you can make the front end do the right thing I’d be happy to take it. (Don’t forget the manual.) ** ** SImon ** ** *From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas Frisby *Sent:* 16 July 2013 21:29 *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: defunctionalization ** ** Ah, I misread that TidyPgm function.It looks like if I build the CoreUnfolding, GHC will respect it. It's just rejecting the pragma combination in HsSyn. On Jul 16, 2013 3:22 PM, Nicolas Frisby nicolas.fri...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to put a NOINLINE and an INLINABLE pragma on a binding. (I'm sketching a defunctionalization pass. I'd like the 'apply` routine RHS to make it into the interface file, but I do not want it to be inlined, since that'd undo the defunctionalization.) In other words, I'd like a CoreUnfolding value with the uf_guidance = UnfNever. It seems TidyPgm.addExternal ignores such a core unfolding. Would GHC consider a patch to make this work? Thanks. ___ ghc-devs mailing list 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
Re: defunctionalization
I think that would work, but I was looking for something more precise. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Farmer afar...@ittc.ku.edu wrote: What happens when you put NOINLINE on the function and compile with -fexpose-all-unfoldings? Does that get the behavior you want? On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote: It seems a little weird, but the internal data types can express it, so if you can make the front end do the right thing I’d be happy to take it. (Don’t forget the manual.) ** ** SImon ** ** *From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas Frisby *Sent:* 16 July 2013 21:29 *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: defunctionalization ** ** Ah, I misread that TidyPgm function.It looks like if I build the CoreUnfolding, GHC will respect it. It's just rejecting the pragma combination in HsSyn. On Jul 16, 2013 3:22 PM, Nicolas Frisby nicolas.fri...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to put a NOINLINE and an INLINABLE pragma on a binding. (I'm sketching a defunctionalization pass. I'd like the 'apply` routine RHS to make it into the interface file, but I do not want it to be inlined, since that'd undo the defunctionalization.) In other words, I'd like a CoreUnfolding value with the uf_guidance = UnfNever. It seems TidyPgm.addExternal ignores such a core unfolding. Would GHC consider a patch to make this work? Thanks. ___ ghc-devs mailing list 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
Re: defunctionalization
This table outlines my plan for the compatibility of the pragmas. Each cell is formatted as x/y, where x answers Is the original RHS in the interface file? and y answers Will GHC try to inline it?. NOINLINE INLINABLE INLINE none no/no yes/yes yes/enthusiastically NOINLINE error yes/no error INLINABLE - error error INLINE - - error The proposed new yes/no option gives the GHC user more control. It prevents GHC from inlining a function while still supporting the ability to use the annotated function's RHS in another module, via SPECIALISE or the special inline function. Moreover, the presence of the RHS in the .hi file could be used by tools other than GHC like plugins or a super-compiler. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.comwrote: It seems a little weird, but the internal data types can express it, so if you can make the front end do the right thing I’d be happy to take it. (Don’t forget the manual.) ** ** SImon ** ** *From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas Frisby *Sent:* 16 July 2013 21:29 *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: defunctionalization ** ** Ah, I misread that TidyPgm function.It looks like if I build the CoreUnfolding, GHC will respect it. It's just rejecting the pragma combination in HsSyn. On Jul 16, 2013 3:22 PM, Nicolas Frisby nicolas.fri...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to put a NOINLINE and an INLINABLE pragma on a binding. (I'm sketching a defunctionalization pass. I'd like the 'apply` routine RHS to make it into the interface file, but I do not want it to be inlined, since that'd undo the defunctionalization.) In other words, I'd like a CoreUnfolding value with the uf_guidance = UnfNever. It seems TidyPgm.addExternal ignores such a core unfolding. Would GHC consider a patch to make this work? Thanks. ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Re: defunctionalization
So the idea here to make it possible to have a function that can be specialized at certain types, and explicitly inlined at specific use sites, but ghc otherwise will not inline it? Cool! one thought: might it be simpler to instead have something like EXPLICIT-INLINABLE, rather that requiring the juxtaposition of two pragmas which seem contradictory? On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Nicolas Frisby nicolas.fri...@gmail.comwrote: This table outlines my plan for the compatibility of the pragmas. Each cell is formatted as x/y, where x answers Is the original RHS in the interface file? and y answers Will GHC try to inline it?. NOINLINE INLINABLE INLINE none no/no yes/yes yes/enthusiastically NOINLINE error yes/no error INLINABLE - error error INLINE - - error The proposed new yes/no option gives the GHC user more control. It prevents GHC from inlining a function while still supporting the ability to use the annotated function's RHS in another module, via SPECIALISE or the special inline function. Moreover, the presence of the RHS in the .hi file could be used by tools other than GHC like plugins or a super-compiler. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote: It seems a little weird, but the internal data types can express it, so if you can make the front end do the right thing I’d be happy to take it. (Don’t forget the manual.) ** ** SImon ** ** *From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas Frisby *Sent:* 16 July 2013 21:29 *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: defunctionalization ** ** Ah, I misread that TidyPgm function.It looks like if I build the CoreUnfolding, GHC will respect it. It's just rejecting the pragma combination in HsSyn. On Jul 16, 2013 3:22 PM, Nicolas Frisby nicolas.fri...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to put a NOINLINE and an INLINABLE pragma on a binding. (I'm sketching a defunctionalization pass. I'd like the 'apply` routine RHS to make it into the interface file, but I do not want it to be inlined, since that'd undo the defunctionalization.) In other words, I'd like a CoreUnfolding value with the uf_guidance = UnfNever. It seems TidyPgm.addExternal ignores such a core unfolding. Would GHC consider a patch to make this work? Thanks. ___ ghc-devs mailing list 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
new pragma name ideas? (was: defunctionalization)
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Carter Schonwald carter.schonw...@gmail.com wrote: So the idea here to make it possible to have a function that can be specialized at certain types, and explicitly inlined at specific use sites, but ghc otherwise will not inline it? Cool! one thought: might it be simpler to instead have something like EXPLICIT-INLINABLE, rather that requiring the juxtaposition of two pragmas which seem contradictory? I like that idea. How about SPECIALISABLE? This is a nod to the possibility that GHC might someday automatically specialize an imported function. Or EXPOSE? Or EXTERNAL? Bikeshed activate! ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Re: new pragma name ideas? (was: defunctionalization)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18/07/13 23:18, Nicolas Frisby wrote: On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Carter Schonwald carter.schonw...@gmail.com wrote: So the idea here to make it possible to have a function that can be specialized at certain types, and explicitly inlined at specific use sites, but ghc otherwise will not inline it? Cool! one thought: might it be simpler to instead have something like EXPLICIT-INLINABLE, rather that requiring the juxtaposition of two pragmas which seem contradictory? I like that idea. How about SPECIALISABLE? This is a nod to the possibility that GHC might someday automatically specialize an imported function. Or EXPOSE? Or EXTERNAL? Bikeshed activate! ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs Maybe we need a BIKESHED pragma that will let us alias any extensions within the project to anything we like. - -- Mateusz K. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR6G1uAAoJEM1mucMq2pqXrbYP/RXWS0yeI6Ewy6hx35rmqxPG TfCK5U9KjW9WkvWXZqJq407Z0Qluiif0UIfMFy8oujj3RnjJUKN+1Co/zVdYxyiD 0LGdS4SxDQO4aRTd1uRAjaMGzVUA4xkAp+lQNI9jKN0ZojMiSQHXr4FoThkNTV1r wWUlYwTeDJlm1HJgqcNMIjhegeG1GJrmz3i5BZgW7WBI65TL/8MfwEozFO8jjtzD R44gF0sIg7rWEfzO3jFuhr+F3w9vwZ24KzAFPLjAIJlmB/YiBK7WwiIXI0tQhdg/ /72vVgQQMGsmSauZ0j2hjfImGDU45wLZ21w26/kkn7F6k9k+6BRFsedI1qI0Bf7V UqTG4oWLaZ5+EYQhvLH4VjYtH7h3UgGacHiYHcKHnmL49rr6GjDWQqBE8pieAtkQ ckhTw+fpMPQZd6T6J5OX5VNsnWcEG4C89PPCvYL9Jvw8tq6uzcTdRbxc+Thu3Plr I6hmcM5Ibz0n+nvqWLzsY/4voQb/CtiZWQQZ+c2VbIx1HpWsKTH0NFdHX891faTn ijsm8wsO0YcyvtlFPfZxKoQfb1GiBN+ttdlYStS7i15YmDujl7GYlXeHz0nr9FYv nNpHoNkz+U+fH3Neeh4epCOGxUhkAPWG/u1tMTAxQad0JiLpedKxB/IMBen+16pb IT4deYFnfsQjp/HAQfHQ =h5Nz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
defunctionalization
I'd like to put a NOINLINE and an INLINABLE pragma on a binding. (I'm sketching a defunctionalization pass. I'd like the 'apply` routine RHS to make it into the interface file, but I do not want it to be inlined, since that'd undo the defunctionalization.) In other words, I'd like a CoreUnfolding value with the uf_guidance = UnfNever. It seems TidyPgm.addExternal ignores such a core unfolding. Would GHC consider a patch to make this work? Thanks. ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
