Re: Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-24 Thread Michal Terepeta
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:04 PM Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 October 2016 at 14:03, Michal Terepeta <michal.terep...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > I was looking at cleaning up a bit the situation with dataflow analysis > for Cmm. >

Re: Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-21 Thread Simon Marlow
On 16 October 2016 at 14:03, Michal Terepeta <michal.terep...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I was looking at cleaning up a bit the situation with dataflow analysis > for Cmm. > In particular, I was experimenting with rewriting the current > `cmm.Hoopl.Dataflow` mod

Re: Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-20 Thread Ben Gamari
Jan Stolarek writes: >> I don't entirely agree. I personally find it very hard to review large >> patches as the amount of mental context generally seems to grow >> super-linearly in the amount of code touched. Moreover, I think it's >> important to remember that the need

Re: Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-20 Thread Jan Stolarek
> I don't entirely agree. I personally find it very hard to review large > patches as the amount of mental context generally seems to grow > super-linearly in the amount of code touched. Moreover, I think it's > important to remember that the need to read patches does not vanish the > moment the

Re: Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-20 Thread Ben Gamari
Jan Stolarek writes: >> (did you intend to send two identical links?) > No :-) The branches should be js-hoopl-cleanup-v1 and js-hoopl-cleanup-v2 > >> Yes, the end result would be the same - I'm merely asking what would be >> preferred by GHC devs (i.e., I don't know how

Re: Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-18 Thread Jan Stolarek
> (did you intend to send two identical links?) No :-) The branches should be js-hoopl-cleanup-v1 and js-hoopl-cleanup-v2 > Yes, the end result would be the same - I'm merely asking what would be > preferred by GHC devs (i.e., I don't know how fine grained patches to GHC > usually are). I don't

Re: Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-17 Thread Ben Gamari
Michal Terepeta writes: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57 AM Jan Stolarek > wrote: > >> Second question: how could we merge this? (...) >> I'm not sure if I understand. The end result after merging will be exactly >> the same, right? Are >> you

Re: Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-17 Thread Michal Terepeta
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57 AM Jan Stolarek wrote: > Michał, > > Dataflow module could indeed use cleanup. I have made two attempts at this > in the past but I don't > think any of them was merged - see [1] and [2]. [2] was mostly > type-directed simplifications. It >

Re: Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-17 Thread Jan Stolarek
remember to set status of revision to "Planned changes" after uploading it to Phab so it doesn't sit in reviewing queue. Janek Dnia niedziela, 16 października 2016, Michal Terepeta napisał: > Hi, > > I was looking at cleaning up a bit the situation with dataflow analysis f

Dataflow analysis for Cmm

2016-10-16 Thread Michal Terepeta
Hi, I was looking at cleaning up a bit the situation with dataflow analysis for Cmm. In particular, I was experimenting with rewriting the current `cmm.Hoopl.Dataflow` module: - To only include the functionality to do analysis (since GHC doesn’t seem to use the rewriting part). Benefits