November 2015 - ghc-devs

RE: vectorisation code?
by Simon Peyton Jones 12 Sep '16

12 Sep '16

Austin, (or anyone else) Manuel says: | > Would it be ok if we left it in the repo, but CPP'd it out so that | we | > didn't compile everything? (The DPH library is in the same state at | > the moment.) | > | > It might suffer bit-rot, but it’d still be there for resurrection. | | Sure, that’s ok. Could you action this? Just avoid compiling anything in 'vectorise/', using (I suppose) cpp to create a stub where necessary. Leave enough comments to explain! Simon | | I hope everything is fine in Cambridge! | Manuel | | > | -----Original Message----- | > | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of | > | Manuel M T Chakravarty | > | Sent: 16 January 2015 02:58 | > | To: Richard Eisenberg | > | Cc: ghc-devs(a)haskell.org Devs | > | Subject: Re: vectorisation code? | > | | > | [Sorry, sent from the wrong account at first.] | > | | > | We currently don’t have the resources to work on DPH. I would | > | obviously prefer to leave the code in, in the hope that we will be | > | able to return to it. | > | | > | Manuel | > | | > | > Richard Eisenberg <eir(a)cis.upenn.edu>: | > | > | > | > Hi devs, | > | > | > | > There's a sizable number of modules in the `vectorise` | > | subdirectory of GHC. I'm sure these do all sorts of wonderful | > | things. But what, exactly? And, does anyone make use of these | wonderful things? | > | > | > | > A quick poking through the code shows a tiny link between the | > | vectorise code and the rest of GHC -- the function `vectorise` | > | exported from the module `Vectorise`, which is named in exactly | one | > | place from SimplCore. From what I can tell, the function will be | > | called only when `-fvectorise` is specified, and then it seems to | > | interact with a {-# VECTORISE #-} pragma. However, `{-# VECTORISE | > | #-}` doesn't appear in the manual at all, and `-fvectorise` is | > | given only a cursory explanation. It seems these work with DPH... | > | which has been disabled, no? Searching online finds several hits, | > | but nothing more recent than 2012. | > | > | > | > I hope this question doesn't offend -- it seems that | > | vectorisation probably has amazing performance gains. Yet, the | > | feature also seems unloved. In the meantime, compiling (and | > | recompiling, and | > | recompiling...) the modules takes time, as does going through | them | > | to propagate changes from elsewhere. If this feature is truly | > | orphaned, unloved, and unused at the moment, is it reasonable to | > | consider putting it on furlough? | > | > | > | > Thanks, | > | > Richard | > | > _______________________________________________ | > | > ghc-devs mailing list | > | > ghc-devs(a)haskell.org | > | > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs | > | | > | _______________________________________________ | > | ghc-devs mailing list | > | ghc-devs(a)haskell.org | > | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

13 35

"Excuse me, I think this i my stop..." - Resigning from the Platform
by Mark Lentczner 22 Feb '16

22 Feb '16

I think this is the right time for me to exit: The truth is, I still can't bring myself to use a version of Haskell post the Foldable-Traversable-aPocalypse, let alone some future Haskell after the changes now in the works. My personal machines are all still 7.8. My personal projects are all pre-FTP. The Haskell I love to code in, the Haskell I'm passionate about, the Haskell I've advocated for real world use, and the Haskell I like to teach, is 7.8, pre-FTP. It's not that I'm dead set against change and evolution in a language, or even breaking changes. But FTP and beyond are changes that have lost the balance that Haskell had between abstraction and clarity, between elaborate and practical engineering. I don't see any restraint going forward, so I'm getting off the train. This puts me in an odd position with respect to Haskell Platform: I find myself building the Platform for a version of Haskell that I don't use. This isn't healthy for either the Platform or me. Hence, I'm resigning as release manager. I am sad because I believed that Haskell's path to much wider adoption was within reach. Now, especially with the ramping up of the Haskell Prime committee, which seems preordained to codify FTP and beyond into standard, we are approaching our Algol 68 moment: Building a major language revision with less opportunity than it's predecessor. I'll still see you 'round at meet-ups and conferences. I'll just be coding with an older accent. - Mark "mzero" Lentczner

7 8

Fwd: Compiling Core Haskell using GHC API
by Marek Wawrzos 20 Feb '16

20 Feb '16

Hello, I'm trying to compile some module with GHC API. I'm going to feed GHC with Core generated by me. So far is noticed, that function compileCoreToObj ends with an runtime error on each call. In spide of this function produces some *.o and *.hi files. However, produced interface file does not contain any item in exports field, what makes compiled module unusable. Because of this problem, I tried to achieve my goal by using steps described here: https://wiki.haskell.org/GHC/As_a_library (the second example) I was able to print out Core produced form file. If I'm not wrong, modifying structures passing on between sequent calls does not effect on produced *.hi and *.o files. Both files are generated by `load LoadAllTargets' call, and further calls (parseModule, loadModule, ...) does not effect on generated files. Could You give me any advices in that topic? Am I right about compileCoreToObj and functions mentioned above? Best Regards, Marek

2 3

Explanation of a core-lint warning (Bad getNth)
by Jan Bracker 16 Jan '16

16 Jan '16

Hi, I am using the type checker plugin interface and I am trying to produce some evidence for type class instances. During compilation of one of my examples I get this core-lint error: *** Core Lint errors : in result of Simplifier *** <no location info>: Warning: [RHS of ds_a6bY :: (Set '["thres" :-> Int], Set (Unit Reader))] Bad getNth: Nth:0 (Nth:2 (Sub (Sym (TFCo:R:Inv[]Readerfg[0] <'["thres" :-> Int]>_N <'[]>_N)) ; (Inv <Reader>_N <'["thres" :-> Int]>_N (Sym TFCo:R:Unit[]Reader[0]))_R ; Sub (TFCo:R:Inv[]Readerfg[0] <'["thres" :-> Int]>_N <Unit Reader>_N))) Split '["thres" :-> Int] '[] (Union '["thres" :-> Int] '[]) Split '["thres" :-> Int] (Unit Reader) (Union '["thres" :-> Int] (Unit Reader)) I suppose "getNth" refers to the constructor "EvTupleSel" from "EvTerm", "TcNthCo" from "TcCoercion" or to "NthCo" from "Coercion". But I never produce evidence of the shape "getNth". My evidence production code can be found at [1] and the only place where evidence of this shape can come from is my "evaluateType" function [2] that calls "normaliseType" from the GHC module "FamInstEnv". You can reproduce the error by checking out commit 144525886ec107af6f1283b26b19f8125c980aa4 from [3] and running "make effect-example" in the top directory of the repository (GHC 7.10 or better is required and a sandbox is automatically created). The core-lint error does not seem to have any negative consequences when ignored. The produced executable works fine. Can somebody explain why it appears and maybe how I can fix it? Thank you! Jan [1] https://github.com/jbracker/polymonad-plugin/blob/144525886ec107af6f1283b26… [2] https://github.com/jbracker/polymonad-plugin/blob/144525886ec107af6f1283b26… [3] https://github.com/jbracker/polymonad-plugin

4 12

Remote GHCi
by Simon Marlow 08 Jan '16

08 Jan '16

Hi folks - I've been thinking about changing the way we run interpreted code so that it would be run in a separate process. It turns out this has quite a few benefits, and would let us kill some of the really awkward hacks we have in GHC to work around problems that arise because we're running interpreted code and the compiler on the same runtime. I summarised the idea here: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/RemoteGHCi I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any thoughts around this, particularly if doing this would make your life difficult in some way. Are people relying on dynCompileExpr for anything? Cheers, Simon

9 27

Implementation idea for unboxed polymorphic types
by Francesco Mazzoli 05 Jan '16

05 Jan '16

(A nicely rendered version of this email can be found at <https://gist.github.com/bitonic/52cfe54a2dcdbee1b7f3>) ## Macro types I very often find myself wanting unboxed polymorphic types (e.g. types that contain `UNPACK`ed type variables). I find it extremely frustrating that it's easier to write fast _and_ generic code in C++ than in Haskell. I'd like to submit to the mailing list a very rough proposal on how this could be achieved in a pretty straightforward way in GHC. The proposal is meant to be a proof of concept, just to show that this could be done rather easily. I did not think about a nice interface or the implementation details in GHC. My goal is to check the feasibility of this plan with GHC developers. I'll call such types "macro types", since their effect is similar to defining a macro that defines a new type for each type variable instantiation. Consider ``` data #Point a = Point { x :: {-# UNPACK #-} !a , y :: {-# UNPACK #-} !a } ``` This definition defines the macro type `#Point`, with one parameter `a`. Macro types definition would be allowed only for single-constructor records. The intent is that if we mention `#Point Double`, it will be equivalent to ``` data PointDouble = PointDouble { x :: {-# UNPACK #-} !Double , y :: {-# UNPACK #-} !Double } ``` To use `#Point` generically, the following type class would be generated: ``` class PointFamily a where data #Point a :: * -- Family of types generated by @data #Point a@. #Point :: a -> a -> #Point a -- Constructor. #x :: #Point a -> a -- Projection @x@. #y :: #Point a -> a -- Projection @y@. ``` Thi type class lets us work with `#Point`s generically, for example ``` distance :: (PointFamily a, Fractional a) => #Point a -> #Point a -> a distance p1 p2 = let dx = #x p1 - #x p2 dy = #y p1 - #y p2 in sqrt (dx*dx + dy*dy) ``` Internally, for every type appearing for `a`, e.g. `#Point Double`, a new type equivalent to the `PointDouble` above would be generated by GHC, with the corresponding instance ``` instance PointFamily Double where data #Point Double = PointDouble #x = x #y = x ``` If it's not possible to instantiate `#Point` with the provided type (for example because the type is not `UNPACK`able, e.g. `#Point (Maybe A)`), GHC would throw an error. Note that we can compile `distance` in its polymorphic version (as opposed to C++ templates, where template functions _must_ be instantiated at every use). The polymorphic `distance` would require a call to "virtual functions" `#x` and `#y`, as provided by the `PointFamily` dictionary. But if we use `INLINE` or `SPECIALIZE` pragmas the virtual calls to `#x` and `#y` would disappear, making this as efficient as if we were to define `distance` on the manually defined `PointDouble`. Compiler hints would be put in place to always inline functions using macro types, if possible. Note that the inlining is only important so that the `PointFamily` dictionary disappears, e.g. functions containing recursive helpers are fine, such as ``` {-# INLINE leftmost #-} leftmost :: forall a. (PointFamily a, Ord a) => [#Point a] -> #Point a leftmost [] = error "leftmost: no points" leftmost (p0 : ps0) = go p0 ps0 where go :: #Point a -> [#Point a] -> Point# a go candidate (p : ps) = if #x p < #x candidate then go p ps else go candidate ps ``` It might be worth considering throwing a warning when a top-level definition whose type contains a macro type cannot be inlined, since the main performance benefit of using macro types would be lost. We can define instances for these types as normal, for instance ``` instance (Show a, PointFamily a) => Show (#Point a) where {-# INLINE show #-} show pt = "Point{x = " ++ #x pt ++ ", y = " ++ #y pt ++ "}" ``` `deriving` support could also be added. ## Further ideas ### Hide or remove `PointFamily` from the user In the examples above `PointFamily` is manipulated explicitely (e.g. in the type signature for `distance`). In most cases the right constraint could be generated automatically by GHC, although I think direct access to the type class would be beneficial (history shows that direct access to these facilities is good, see upcoming explicit type applications). Maybe the type class associated to a macro type should not even exist -- for example we could simply represent `#Point` as a type family and treat construction and destruction as built-in syntax (the `#` prefix). ### Pattern matching Sugar could be added to pattern match, e.g. ``` foo :: Point# a -> ... distance (Point# x1 y1) = ... or dinstance Point#{..} = ... -- #x and #y are available ``` ### No "record types" limitation Instead of restricting ourselves to single-constructor records, we could simply generate ``` data Point a = Point a { x :: !a , y :: !a } class PointFamily a where data Point# a :: * destruct :: Point# a -> Point a construct :: Point a -> Point# a ``` However, I think it would be harder to guarantee the well-behavedness of the inlined functions if we had this intermediate type. I also don't think macro types would be very useful beyond polymorphic unboxed types.

4 5

Unlifted data types
by Edward Z. Yang 29 Dec '15

29 Dec '15

Hello friends, After many discussions and beers at ICFP, I've written up my current best understanding of the unlifted data types proposal: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/UnliftedDataTypes Many thanks to Richard, Iavor, Ryan, Simon, Duncan, George, Paul, Edward Kmett, and any others who I may have forgotten for crystallizing this proposal. Cheers, Edward

12 67

arc land changes author
by Joachim Breitner 19 Dec '15

19 Dec '15

Hi, I was just about to apply a DR by David. First I ran $ arc patch D390 which put me on a feature branch. Then I reworded the commit with $ git commit --amend and then I tried to land it with $ arc land Luckily I also passed --hold... It even asked me if I want to land the commit although I am not the author: This branch has revision 'D390: Reorder GHC.List; fix performance regressions' but you are not the author. Land this revision by dfeuer? [y/N] y But it still put me in the author field: $ git show HEAD commit a387c359b99667ce55016de3816b5d9873a155db Author: Joachim Breitner <mail(a)joachim-breitner.de> Date: Wed Oct 29 08:17:05 2014 +0100 Reorder GHC.List; fix performance regressions Summary: Rearrange some oddly placed code. (and undid my commit message changes....) Did I do something wrong? Anyways, it said something along the lines of Cleaning up feature branch... (Use `git checkout -b 'arcpatch-D390' 'a3ceb0e7f44d53f728fb8bd0dfb4c97297818029'` if you want it back.) so with $ git commit --amend -C a3ceb0e7f44d53f728fb8bd0dfb4c97297818029 I was able to get the edited commit message with the right author back. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nomeata(a)joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata(a)debian.org

2 2

Warning suppression pragmas
by Эдгар Жаворонков 15 Dec '15

15 Dec '15

Hello devs! I am trying to implement some kind of local warnings suppresion and i need some help. I want to use a pragma to mark functions so compiler won't throw warnings from them. I defined my pragma in lexer, parser and added type signature in HsBinds.hs. And i am stuck. I don't know what to do. What should i consider doing further? I designed a small wiki page here - https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Design/LocalWarningPragmas So if you have nice examples, feel free to add them. Thanks for your help in advance! --- С уважением, Жаворонков Эдгар Best regards, Edgar A. Zhavoronkov

4 4

Questions concerning the LLVM backend - i.e. 'proc point splitting'
by David Spitzenberg 08 Dec '15

08 Dec '15

Hello everybody, I've got some questions concerning the LLVM backend - i.e. the pass 'proc point splitting' in the cmm-pipeline. I'm new to this list as well as to computer science in general - at least in some sense. Being a third semester student of computer science, I'm not quite sure, whether I'm addressing the right list with this mail. Feel free to correct me, if not. I'm doing numerical stencil calculations which heavily depend on nested loops expressed as tail-recursive functions nested one in another. When compiling a module, GHC seems capable of emitting pretty good cmm-code. At least as long as the loop bodies do not contain any call to non-inlineable functions. In most cases 'loopification' fires and transforms tail-recursive calls into loops. When calling into non-inlineable functions, 'proc point splitting' is performed. This splits the loops into several mutually-recursive functions therefore significantly decreasing the possibilities of 'opt' in optimizing the code later on. This leads to pretty bad performance of the whole calculation. To avoid the presence of proc points within a loop body - and by doing so the splitting of the body - I currently try to avoid calls into non-inlineable functions by merging the nested recursive functions into one giant tail-recursive function. This works, as long as everything not defined in the module being compiled can be inlined. Apparently, this is not a long term solution. My questions: - The reason to perform 'proc point splitting' is, that LLVM IR lacks of the possibility to call into an arbitrary basic block of a function body from outside the function itself. Is this understanding right? - Are there any other possibilities to avoid 'proc point splitting' when using LLVM as a backend? - I recently read the article on an improved LLVM backend in the GHC wiki (https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ImprovedLLVMBackend) but couldn't find any suggestions on the topic of 'proc point splitting'. Are there any plans to solve the problem either by teaching LLVM IR the lacking functionality or in any other way? I'd really like to contribute to GHC by working on this problem, but I'm not quite sure, if I'm capable of doing so. My background knowledge is still somewhat limited, but I'm working on it ;-) Thanks in advance for your help! Regards, David Spitzenberg PS.: Thanks to everyone for the great work you're doing on GHC!

3 5