-
d419e972
by Luite Stegeman at 2026-04-13T15:16:04-04:00
Suppress desugaring warnings in the pattern match checker
Avoid duplicating warnings from the actual desugaring pass.
fixes #25996
-
c5b80dd0
by Phil de Joux at 2026-04-13T15:16:51-04:00
Typo ~/ghc/arch-os-version/environments
-
71462fff
by Luite Stegeman at 2026-04-13T15:17:38-04:00
add changelog entry for #26233
-
d1ddfd4b
by Rodrigo Mesquita at 2026-04-14T18:41:12-04:00
Add test for #25636
The existing test behaviour of "T23146_liftedeq" changed because the
simplifier now does a bit more inlining. We can restore the previous bad
behavior by using an OPAQUE pragma.
This test doubles as a test for #25636 when run in ghci, so we add it as
such.
-
b9df40ee
by Rodrigo Mesquita at 2026-04-14T18:41:12-04:00
refactor: protoBCOName is always a Name
Simplifies the code by removing the unnecessary type argument to
ProtoBCO which was always 'Name'
-
5c2a179e
by Rodrigo Mesquita at 2026-04-14T18:41:12-04:00
Allocate static constructors for bytecode
This commit adds support for static constructors when compiling and
linking ByteCode objects.
Top-level StgRhsCon get lowered to ProtoStaticCons rather than to
ProtoBCOs. A ProtoStaticCon gets allocated directly as a data con
application on the heap (using the new primop newConApp#).
Previously, we would allocate a ProtoBCO which, when evaluated, would
PACK and return the constructor.
A few more details are given in Note [Static constructors in Bytecode].
Secondly, this commit also fixes issue #25636 which was caused by
linking *unlifted* constructors in BCO instructions as
- (1) a thunk indexing the array of BCOs in a module
- (2) which evaluated to a BCO which still had to be evaluated to
return the unlifted constructor proper.
The (2) issue has been resolved by allocating the static constructors
directly. The (1) issue can be resolved by ensuring that we allocate all
unlifted top-level constructors eagerly, and leave the knot-tying for
the lifted BCOs and top-level constructors only.
The top-level unlifted constructors are never mutually recursive, so we
can allocate them all in one go as long as we do it in topological
order. Lifted fields of unlifted constructors can still be filled by the
knot-tied lifted variables since in those fields it is fine to keep
those thunks. See Note [Tying the knot in createBCOs] for more details.
Fixes #25636
-------------------------
Metric Decrease:
LinkableUsage01
-------------------------
-
cde47053
by Rodrigo Mesquita at 2026-04-14T18:41:12-04:00
Revert "StgToByteCode: Assert that PUSH_G'd values are lifted"
This reverts commit ec26c54d818e0cd328276196930313f66b780905.
Ever since f7a22c0f4e9ae0dc767115d4c53fddbd8372b777, we now do support
and will link top-level unlifted constructors into evaluated and
properly tagged values which we can reference with PUSH_G.
This assertion is no longer true and triggered a failure in T25636
-
c7a7e5b8
by Rodrigo Mesquita at 2026-04-14T18:41:12-04:00
refactor: Tag more remote Ptrs as RemotePtr
Pure refactor which improves the API of
- GHC.ByteCode.Linker
- GHC.Runtime.Interpreter
- GHC.Runtime.Interpreter.Types.SymbolCache
by using `RemotePtr` for more functions which used to return `Ptr`s that
could potentially be in a foreign process. E.g. `lookupIE`,
`lookupStaticPtr`, etc...
-
fc59494c
by Rodrigo Mesquita at 2026-04-14T18:41:12-04:00
Add float# and subword tests for #25636
These tests cover that static constructors in bytecode work correctly
for Float# and subword values (Word8#, Word16#)
-
477f521b
by Rodrigo Mesquita at 2026-04-14T18:41:12-04:00
test: Validate topoSort logic in createBCOs
This test validates that the topological sorting and ordering of the
unlifted constructors and lifted constructors in `createBCOs` is
correct.
See `Note [Tying the knot in createBCOs]` for why tying the knot for the
created BCOs is slightly difficult and why the topological sorting is
necessary.
This test fails when `let topoSortedObjs = topSortObjs objs` is
substituted by `let topoSortedObjs = zip [0..] objs`, thus witnessing
the toposort logic is correct and necessary.
The test calls the ghci `createBCOs` directly because it is currently
impossible to construct in Source Haskell a situation where a top-level
static unlifted constructor depends on another (we don't have top-level
unlifted constructors except for nullary constructors like `Leaf ::
(UTree :: UnliftedType)`).
This is another test for fix for #25636
-
2d9c30be
by Simon Jakobi at 2026-04-14T18:42:00-04:00
Improve tests for `elem`
...in order to simplify the work on #27096.
* Improve T17752 by including the Core output in golden files, checking
both -O1 and -O2.
* Add tests for fusion and no-fusion cases.
Fixes #27101.
-
909d52a4
by fendor at 2026-04-15T11:45:50+02:00
Expose startupHpc as an rts symbol
-
1ff995c5
by fendor at 2026-04-15T11:48:16+02:00
Make HPC work with bytecode interpreter
Add support to generate .tix files from bytecode objects and the
bytecode interpreter.
Conceptually, we insert HPC ticks into the bytecode similar to how we insert
breakpoints.
HPC and breakpoints do not share the same tick array but we use a separate
tick-array for hpc/breakpoint ticks during bytecode generation.
We teach the bytecode interpreter to handle hpc ticks.
The implementation is quite trivial, simply increment the counter in the
global hpc_ticks array for the respective module.
This hpc_ticks array is generated as part of the `CStub`, so we can rely
on it existing.
A tricky bit is "registering" a bytecode object for HPC instrumentation.
In the compiled case, this is achieved via CStub and initializer/finalizers
`.init` sections which are called when the executable is run.
After the initializers have been invoked, which is before `hs_init_ghc`,
we then call `startup_hpc` in `hs_init_ghc` iff any modules were "registered"
for hpc instrumentation via `hs_hpc_module`.
Since bytecode objects are loaded after starting up GHCi, this workflow
doesn't work for supporting `hpc` and the `hpc` run-time is never
started, even if a module is added for instrumentation.
We fix this issue by employing the same technique as is for `SptEntry`s:
* We introduce a new field to `CompiledByteCode`, called `ByteCodeHpcInfo`
which contains enough information to call `hs_hpc_module`, allowing us to
register the module for `hpc` instrumentation`.
* After registering the module, we unconditionally call `startupHpc`, to make
sure the .tix file is written.
Calling `startupHpc` multiple times is safe.
Calling `hs_hpc_module` multiple times for the same module is also safe.
If we didn't register the hpc module in this way, evaluating a bytecode object
instrumented with `-fhpc` without registering it in the `hpc` run-time will
simply not generate any `.tix` files for this bytecode object.
However, this shouldn't happen if everything is set up correctly.
Closes #27036