Commit 04a484ea authored by Simon Peyton Jones's avatar Simon Peyton Jones

Test Trac #10359

parent a9ccd37a
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
{-# LANGUAGE RecordWildCards #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ConstraintKinds #-}
module Main( main, boo ) where
import Prelude hiding (repeat)
boo xs f = (\x -> f x, xs)
repeat :: Int -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
repeat 1 f x = f x
repeat n f x = n `seq` x `seq` repeat (n-1) f $ f x
---- Buggy version
------------------
type Numerical a = (Fractional a, Real a)
data Box a = Box
{ func :: forall dum. (Numerical dum) => dum -> a -> a
, obj :: !a }
do_step :: (Numerical num) => num -> Box a -> Box a
do_step number Box{..} = Box{ obj = func number obj, .. }
start :: Box Double
start = Box { func = \x y -> realToFrac x + y
, obj = 0 }
test :: Int -> IO ()
test steps = putStrLn $ show $ obj $ repeat steps (do_step 1) start
---- Driver
-----------
main :: IO ()
main = test 2000 -- compare test2 10000000 or test3 10000000, but test4 20000
{-
---- No tuple constraint synonym is better
------------------------------------------
data Box2 a = Box2
{ func2 :: forall num. (Fractional num, Real num) => num -> a -> a
, obj2 :: !a }
do_step2 :: (Fractional num, Real num) => num -> Box2 a -> Box2 a
do_step2 number Box2{..} = Box2{ obj2 = func2 number obj2, ..}
start2 :: Box2 Double
start2 = Box2 { func2 = \x y -> realToFrac x + y
, obj2 = 0 }
test2 :: Int -> IO ()
test2 steps = putStrLn $ show $ obj2 $ repeat steps (do_step2 1) start2
---- Not copying the function field works too
---------------------------------------------
do_step3 :: (Numerical num) => num -> Box a -> Box a
do_step3 number b@Box{..} = b{ obj = func number obj }
test3 :: Int -> IO ()
test3 steps = putStrLn $ show $ obj $ repeat steps (do_step3 1) start
---- But record wildcards are not at fault
------------------------------------------
do_step4 :: (Numerical num) => num -> Box a -> Box a
do_step4 number Box{func = f, obj = x} = Box{ obj = f number x, func = f }
test4 :: Int -> IO ()
test4 steps = putStrLn $ show $ obj $ repeat steps (do_step4 1) start
-}
{-
First of all, very nice example. Thank you for making it so small and easy to work with.
I can see what's happening. The key part is what happens here:
{{{
do_step4 :: (Numerical num) => num -> Box a -> Box a
do_step4 number Box{ func = f, obj = x}
= Box{ func = f, obj = f number x }
}}}
After elaboration (ie making dictionaries explicit) we get this:
{{{
do_step4 dn1 number (Box {func = f, obj = x })
= Box { func = \dn2 -> f ( case dn2 of (f,r) -> f
, case dn2 of (f,r) -> r)
, obj = f dn1 number x }
}}}
That's odd! We expected this:
{{{
do_step4 dn1 number (Box {func = f, obj = x })
= Box { func = f
, obj = f dn1 number x }
}}}
And indeed, the allocation of all those `\dn2` closures is what is causing the problem.
So we are missing this optimisation:
{{{
(case dn2 of (f,r) -> f, case dn2 of (f,r) -> r)
===>
dn2
}}}
If we did this, then the lambda would look like `\dn2 -> f dn2` which could eta-reduce to `f`.
But there are at least three problems:
* The tuple transformation above is hard to spot
* The tuple transformation is not quite semantically right; if `dn2` was bottom, the LHS and RHS are different
* The eta-reduction isn't quite semantically right: if `f` ws bottom, the LHS and RHS are different.
You might argue that the latter two can be ignored because dictionary arguments are special;
indeed we often toy with making them strict.
But perhaps a better way to avoid the tuple-transformation issue would be not to construct that strange expression in the first place. Where is it coming from? It comes from the call to `f` (admittedly applied to no arguments) in `Box { ..., func = f }`. GHC needs a dictionary for `(Numerical dum)` (I changed the name of the type variable in `func`'s type in the definition of `Box`). Since it's just a pair GHC says "fine, I'll build a pair, out of `Fractional dum` and `Real dum`. How does it get those dictionaries? By selecting the components of the `Franctional dum` passed to `f`.
If GHC said instead "I need `Numerical dum` and behold I have one in hand, it'd be much better. It doesn't because tuple constraints are treated specially. But if we adopted the idea in #10362, we would (automatically) get to re-use the `Numerical dum` constraint. That would leave us with eta reduction, which is easier.
As to what will get you rolling, a good solution is `test3`, which saves instantiating and re-generalising `f`. The key thing is to update all the fields ''except'' the polymorphic `func` field. I'm surprised you say that it doesn't work. Can you give a (presumably more complicated) example to demonstrate? Maybe there's a separate bug!
-}
# Tests that newArray/newArray_ is being optimised correctly
test('T10359',
[stats_num_field('bytes allocated',
[(wordsize(64), 499512, 5),
(wordsize(32), 250000, 5)]),
only_ways(['normal'])
],
compile_and_run,
['-O'])
# fortunately the values here are mostly independent of the wordsize,
# because the test allocates an unboxed array of doubles.
test('T3586',
[stats_num_field('peak_megabytes_allocated', (17, 1)),
# expected value: 17 (amd64/Linux)
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment