Commit d1e15bd2 authored by simonpj@microsoft.com's avatar simonpj@microsoft.com
Browse files

Fix free-variable finder

After a long hunt I discovered that the reason that GHC.Enum.eftIntFB
was being marked as a loop-breaker was the bizare behaviour of exprFreeVars,
which returned not only the free variables of an expression but also the
free variables of RULES attached to variables occuring in the expression!

This was clearly deliberate (the comment was CoreFVs rev 1.1 in 1999) but
I've removed it; I've left the comment with further notes in case there
turns out to be a Deep Reason.
parent ec968a32
......@@ -84,21 +84,40 @@ union fv1 fv2 fv_cand in_scope = fv1 fv_cand in_scope `unionVarSet` fv2 fv_cand
noVars :: FV
noVars fv_cand in_scope = emptyVarSet
-- At a variable occurrence, add in any free variables of its rule rhss
-- Curiously, we gather the Id's free *type* variables from its binding
-- site, but its free *rule-rhs* variables from its usage sites. This
-- is a little weird. The reason is that the former is more efficient,
-- but the latter is more fine grained, and a makes a difference when
-- a variable mentions itself one of its own rule RHSs
-- Comment about obselete code
-- We used to gather the free variables the RULES at a variable occurrence
-- with the following cryptic comment:
-- "At a variable occurrence, add in any free variables of its rule rhss
-- Curiously, we gather the Id's free *type* variables from its binding
-- site, but its free *rule-rhs* variables from its usage sites. This
-- is a little weird. The reason is that the former is more efficient,
-- but the latter is more fine grained, and a makes a difference when
-- a variable mentions itself one of its own rule RHSs"
-- Not only is this "weird", but it's also pretty bad because it can make
-- a function seem more recursive than it is. Suppose
-- f = ...g...
-- g = ...
-- RULE g x = ...f...
-- Then f is not mentioned in its own RHS, and needn't be a loop breaker
-- (though g may be). But if we collect the rule fvs from g's occurrence,
-- it looks as if f mentions itself. (This bites in the eftInt/eftIntFB
-- code in GHC.Enum.)
--
-- Anyway, it seems plain wrong. The RULE is like an extra RHS for the
-- function, so its free variables belong at the definition site.
--
-- Deleted code looked like
-- foldVarSet add_rule_var var_itself_set (idRuleVars var)
-- add_rule_var var set | keep_it fv_cand in_scope var = extendVarSet set var
-- | otherwise = set
-- SLPJ Feb06
oneVar :: Id -> FV
oneVar var fv_cand in_scope
= ASSERT( isId var )
foldVarSet add_rule_var var_itself_set (idRuleVars var)
where
var_itself_set | keep_it fv_cand in_scope var = unitVarSet var
| otherwise = emptyVarSet
add_rule_var var set | keep_it fv_cand in_scope var = extendVarSet set var
| otherwise = set
if keep_it fv_cand in_scope var
then unitVarSet var
else emptyVarSet
someVars :: VarSet -> FV
someVars vars fv_cand in_scope
......@@ -139,12 +158,15 @@ expr_fvs (Case scrut bndr ty alts)
alt_fvs (con, bndrs, rhs) = addBndrs bndrs (expr_fvs rhs)
expr_fvs (Let (NonRec bndr rhs) body)
= expr_fvs rhs `union` addBndr bndr (expr_fvs body)
= rhs_fvs (bndr, rhs) `union` addBndr bndr (expr_fvs body)
expr_fvs (Let (Rec pairs) body)
= addBndrs bndrs (foldr (union . expr_fvs) (expr_fvs body) rhss)
where
(bndrs,rhss) = unzip pairs
= addBndrs (map fst pairs)
(foldr (union . rhs_fvs) (expr_fvs body) pairs)
---------
rhs_fvs (bndr, rhs) = expr_fvs rhs `union` someVars (idRuleVars bndr)
-- Treat any RULES as extra RHSs of the binding
---------
exprs_fvs exprs = foldr (union . expr_fvs) noVars exprs
......
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