Which proposal do you mean?
I referred to Christian's questions whether it is possible to generate
`ff` and `gg` from `f` and `g`. If `h` is similar to `g`, then `hh`
could reuse `ff` while with an inlining approach something like `ff`
would be duplicated.
I'm not sure something like tha
On Nov 5, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/5/10 19:22 , David Peixotto wrote:
>>Probably there are some wins to be had by choosing a good optimization
>>sequence for the code generated from GHC, rather than just
On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
> On 06/11/2010, at 00:28, David Peixotto wrote:
>
>> Yes, the LLVM code has Sp, Hp, Base all annotated as noalias. I believe that
>> Sp, Hp, and Base should never alias, but a (boxed) R1 should always alias
>> with either Sp or Hp. I had a
On 06/11/2010, at 02:27, Sebastian Fischer wrote:
> Interesting. This approach requires `f` to be inlined into its call site in
> order to eliminate the redundant argument. This is different from the
> proposal to provide a specialized version of `f` (where the arguments are
> combined) which c
On Nov 6, 2010, at 8:22 AM, David Peixotto wrote:
To summarize, I found that it is possible to get LLVM to do this
transformation through a combination of tail-call elimination,
inlining,
induction variable optimization, and global value numbering.
Interesting. This approach requires `f` t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/5/10 19:22 , David Peixotto wrote:
> Probably there are some wins to be had by choosing a good optimization
> sequence for the code generated from GHC, rather than just using `-O1`,
> `-O2`, etc. I believe It should be possible to fin
On 06/11/2010, at 00:28, David Peixotto wrote:
> Yes, the LLVM code has Sp, Hp, Base all annotated as noalias. I believe that
> Sp, Hp, and Base should never alias, but a (boxed) R1 should always alias
> with either Sp or Hp. I had a hard time determining exactly how LLVM uses the
> noalias ann
Hi Roman,
On Nov 5, 2010, at 6:44 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
> On 05/11/2010, at 23:22, David Peixotto wrote:
>
>> I spent some time looking at the code generated for llvm and the
>> optimizations
>> it can apply. There were quite a bit of details to examine and I wrote it up
>> as blog post
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Bulat Ziganshin
wrote:
> look into HsLua sources. it does something like you asking (converting
> return type into sequence of commands) so it mau be what you are
> looking for. it uses typeclasses for this effect. the same technique
> used in haskell printf i
On 05/11/2010, at 23:22, David Peixotto wrote:
> I spent some time looking at the code generated for llvm and the optimizations
> it can apply. There were quite a bit of details to examine and I wrote it up
> as blog post here:
> http://www.dmpots.com/blog/2010/11/05/optimizing-haskell-loops-with-
I spent some time looking at the code generated for llvm and the optimizations
it can apply. There were quite a bit of details to examine and I wrote it up
as blog post here:
http://www.dmpots.com/blog/2010/11/05/optimizing-haskell-loops-with-llvm.html.
To summarize, I found that it is possible to
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alexey Khudyakov
wrote:
> I'm not sure what do you exactly want. But what about applicative functors?
> They offer nice notation
>
>> Nerve <$> (Axon <$> newChan) <*> (AxonAny <$> newChan)
Ooo. That is nice.
Mitar
___
On 05.11.2010 14:08, Mitar wrote:
So I know I can move some hard-coded combination into a function. But
I would like to cover all combinations and tell with arguments which
combination I want.
I'm not sure what do you exactly want. But what about applicative
functors? They offer nice notation
Hello Mitar,
Friday, November 5, 2010, 2:08:52 PM, you wrote:
> I would like to call it like "create (Axon undefined) (AxonAny
> undefined)" and get in that case "Nerve (Axon a) (AxonAny b)" as a
> result. If I would call it like "create (AxonAny undefined) (AxonAny
> undefined)" I would get "Ner
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Bulat Ziganshin
wrote:
> Friday, November 5, 2010, 12:45:21 PM, you wrote:
>
>> from <- newChan
>> for <- newChan
>> let nerve = Nerve (Axon from) (AxonAny for)
>
> create = do from <- newChan
> for <- newChan
> return$ Nerve (Axon from)
Hello Mitar,
Friday, November 5, 2010, 12:45:21 PM, you wrote:
> from <- newChan
> for <- newChan
> let nerve = Nerve (Axon from) (AxonAny for)
create = do from <- newChan
for <- newChan
return$ Nerve (Axon from) (AxonAny for)
main = do nerve <- create
...
--
Hi!
I have much fun with rigid types, type signatures and GADTs. And I
would like to invite also others in and share my joy. ;-)
Please see the attached file and chase a solution to how to make it
compile. I would like to have a function which I would call like:
createNerve (Axon undefined) (Axo
17 matches
Mail list logo
