Re: let app invariant failure, HALP Re: how to write a ghc primop that acts on an unevaluated argument?

woot, solved it, at least in a way thats OK for now. if I mark the prefetchValue operations as has_side_effects=True, the core lint failure goes away! I'm not sure if thats the right semantics in the long term, but it does give me a simple way to make sure it works safely for 7.10 pardon all the noise -Carter On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carter Schonwald < carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

ok, i'm getting a let/app invariant failure when i build my test case with O1 or O2 but not without

http://lpaste.net/114881

any help would be appreciated on how to address that

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Carter Schonwald < carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

...

yup, i have that!

wrapFetch prefetchValue0# (error "this shouldn't get evaluated")

in the test suite!

in contrast wrapFetch prefetchValue0# $! (error "this shouldn't get evaluated") does explode

shall I add a "should fail" test with the latter? (it doesn't seem worthwhile)

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:

...

Maybe test for laziness in the argument by just putting something in that goes boom when forced, e.g. 'undefined'?

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Carter Schonwald < carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hey All, as part of trying to get some fixups for how prefetch works into 7.10, i'm adding a "prefetchValue" primop that prefetchs the memory location of a lifted heap value

namely

several operations of the following form

primop PrefetchValueOp1 "prefetchValue1#" GenPrimOp a -> State# s -> State# s with strictness = { \ _arity -> mkClosedStrictSig [botDmd, topDmd] topRes }

I'd like some feedback on the strictness information design by someone who's familiar with how that piece of GHC. the idea being that prefetchValue is lazy in its polymorphic argument (it doesn't force it, it just does a prefetch on the heap location, which may or may not be evaluated).

https://phabricator.haskell.org/D350

is the code in question. And i *believe* i'm testing for being lazy in that argument correctly.

thoughts?

many thanks! -Carter

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs