| First, reading the ghc source code suggests I can only have one -ddinline- | check. Correct?
Yes. The last one wins. This should be in the user manual. Would anyone like to offer a PR? | Also, I'm guessing that the inlining I didn't see reported by -dinline-check | happened inside the simplifier pass inserted by the ConCat plugin. (And | hence INLINE [0] moved it out of that pass.) Is it possible that the flag | isn't getting propagated there? I don't see how that could happen, but I only have a vague idea of what is going on. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Michael Sperber <sper...@deinprogramm.de> | Sent: 18 August 2021 14:14 | To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> | Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | Subject: Re: -dinline-check for symbolic names? | | | On Tue, Aug 10 2021, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: | | > It's hard to tell what is happening without a repro case. Can you share | one? | | Haven't been able to do that with <10MB of output, I'm afraid ... | | > You suggested that it might have something to do with using an | > operator. Does the same thing happen if you replace the operator with | > an alpha-numeric name? | | I've now concluded several things are coming together. As things started | working with INLINE [0] instead of INLINE, it's not the symbolic name. | | First, reading the ghc source code suggests I can only have one -ddinline- | check. Correct? | | Also, I'm guessing that the inlining I didn't see reported by -dinline-check | happened inside the simplifier pass inserted by the ConCat plugin. (And | hence INLINE [0] moved it out of that pass.) Is it possible that the flag | isn't getting propagated there? | | (Sorry for being vague - if you don't know offhand, it's not worth digging | without more info from me.) | | -- | Regards, | Mike _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
