Skip to content
GitLab
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Help
Help
Support
Community forum
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
GHC
Project overview
Project overview
Details
Activity
Releases
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Locked Files
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Boards
Labels
Service Desk
Milestones
Iterations
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
Requirements
Requirements
List
CI / CD
CI / CD
Pipelines
Jobs
Schedules
Security & Compliance
Security & Compliance
Dependency List
License Compliance
Operations
Operations
Incidents
Environments
Packages & Registries
Packages & Registries
Package Registry
Container Registry
Analytics
Analytics
CI / CD
Code Review
Insights
Issue
Repository
Value Stream
Wiki
Wiki
Snippets
Snippets
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Create a new issue
Jobs
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
Alex D
GHC
Commits
2e1b8326
Commit
2e1b8326
authored
Nov 18, 2010
by
simonpj@microsoft.com
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Comments only
parent
42400001
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
with
23 additions
and
0 deletions
+23
-0
compiler/specialise/SpecConstr.lhs
compiler/specialise/SpecConstr.lhs
+23
-0
No files found.
compiler/specialise/SpecConstr.lhs
View file @
2e1b8326
...
...
@@ -457,6 +457,29 @@ can be used in Stream states and (c) some types are fixed by the user
(e.g., the accumulator here) but we still want to specialise as much
as possible.
Alternatives to ForceSpecConstr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Instead of giving the loop an extra argument of type SPEC, we
also considered *wrapping* arguments in SPEC, thus
data SPEC a = SPEC a | SPEC2
loop = \arg -> case arg of
SPEC state ->
case state of (x,y) -> ... loop (SPEC (x',y')) ...
S2 -> error ...
The idea is that a SPEC argument says "specialise this argument
regardless of whether the function case-analyses it. But this
doesn't work well:
* SPEC must still be a sum type, else the strictness analyser
eliminates it
* But that means that 'loop' won't be strict in its real payload
This loss of strictness in turn screws up specialisation, because
we may end up with calls like
loop (SPEC (case z of (p,q) -> (q,p)))
Without the SPEC, if 'loop' was strict, the case would move out
and we'd see loop applied to a pair. But if 'loop' isn' strict
this doesn't look like a specialisable call.
-----------------------------------------------------
Stuff not yet handled
-----------------------------------------------------
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment