work on this?
Simon
From: Bartosz Nitka [mailto:nite...@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 January 2016 14:57
To: Simon Peyton Jones
Cc: Edward Z. Yang ; ghc-devs Devs
Subject: Re: uniqAway and collisions
Hello,
Thank you for the paper, it helped with my understanding of how it's supposed
to work.
Hello,
Thank you for the paper, it helped with my understanding of how it's
supposed to work.
Simon, could my issue be related to your comment here: [1]?
-- Note [Generating the in-scope set for a substitution]
-- ~
-- If we want to substitute [
o: Bartosz Nitka
| Cc: ghc-devs Devs
| Subject: Re: uniqAway and collisions
|
| Hello Bartosz,
|
| The principle between uniqAway is described in the "Secrets of the GHC
| Inliner" paper
|
| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fresear
| ch.microsoft.
Hello Bartosz,
The principle between uniqAway is described in the "Secrets of the GHC
Inliner" paper
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Papers/inlining/
I doubt there's a bug in uniqAway; it's more likely the in scope set is
not correct.
Edward
Excerpts from Bartosz Nitka's
Hi,
I'm running into core lint issues [1] with my determinism patch [2] and
they appear to come down to uniqAway coming up with a Unique that's already
used in the expression. That creates a collision, making next substitution
substitute more than it needs.
I have 2 questions:
1. When is it safe
