I use STG-bindings generated by GHC during CoreToSTG phase. What is
the order of this bindings is it random or does it correspond to
original source code or does it reflect the dependency structure of
the program?
If I define the following in my program:
data Numeral = Zero | Succ Numeral
zero =
[eta_s68];
SRT(Foo.Succ): []
bash-3.1$
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
| Victor Nazarov
| Sent: 19 November 2007 15:09
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: The order if bindings generated by GHC
|
| I use STG-bindings
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
Yes, the bindings should be in dependency order. They certainly seem to be for me
Simon
I always - naively - thought that it is a non-problem. How many times have
I written stuff like that:...
ping = 0 : pong
pong = 1 : ping
It seems that I don't understand
On Nov 19, 2007 9:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always - naively - thought that it is a non-problem. How many times have
I written stuff like that:...
ping = 0 : pong
pong = 1 : ping
It seems that I don't understand the question of Victor Nazarov, nor the
answer of SPJ...
This is
STG syntax:
Foo.zero = NO_CCS Foo.Zero! [];
SRT(Foo.zero): []
Foo.one = NO_CCS Foo.Succ! [Foo.Zero];
SRT(Foo.one): []
Foo.ten = NO_CCS Foo.Succ! [Foo.one];
SRT(Foo.ten): []
Foo.Zero = NO_CCS Foo.Zero! [];
SRT(Foo.Zero): []
Foo.Succ = \r [eta_s68]
I wrote about binding order:
I always - naively - thought that it is a non-problem. How many times have
I written stuff like that:...
ping = 0 : pong
pong = 1 : ping
It seems that I don't understand the question of Victor Nazarov, nor the
answer of SPJ...
This is the question about
