On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:32 AM Simon Peyton Jones
wrote:
> That's explained in the paper. A StableName# is a pointer to a stable name
> object in the heap that *contains* an index into the stable name table.
> Basically, the garbage collector needs to know whether a stable name is
> alive or not,
l.com
Subject: Re: Stable name equality
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 3:39 AM Simon Peyton Jones
mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
Actually I'm confused. Currently we have
data StableName a = StableName (StableName# a)
I believe (but there is no documentation to state) that the (Stabl
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 3:39 AM Simon Peyton Jones
wrote:
>
> Actually I'm confused. Currently we have
>
> data StableName a = StableName (StableName# a)
>
> I believe (but there is no documentation to state) that the (StableName#
> a)
> * Has kind (TYPE UnliftedRep)
> * Is the index of the entr
6
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org; Simon Peyton Jones
| Cc: David Feuer ; marlo...@gmail.com
| Subject: Re: Stable name equality
|
| On Monday, August 20, 2018 11:56:44 AM EDT Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-
| devs wrote:
| > I defer to SimonM but IIRC each stable name corresponds to an entry in
|
I had another thought. If we want, I believe we can make the stable name
mechanism considerably more compact by giving up on a flat array
representation for the stable name table. The flat representation means
that enlarging the table moves all its entries. Suppose we instead choose
some shallow tr
On Monday, August 20, 2018 11:56:44 AM EDT Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs
wrote:
> I defer to SimonM but IIRC each stable name corresponds to an entry in the
> stable-name table; the index in the table is the “stable” thing in a stable
> name. So I bet that comparison compares these indices.
>
table.
But is the reverse true? That is, can we be sure that two pointer-distinct
stable name objects contain different indices?
Simon
From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of David Feuer
Sent: 19 August 2018 18:53
To: ghc-devs
Subject: Stable name equality
eqStableName# is not currently defined as
eqStableName# is not currently defined as pointer equality. Is there some
reason for this? My understanding is that there is a one-to-one
correspondence between stable name objects and active stable name table
entries, so pointer equality should be sufficient. Am I missing something?
__
