PUBLIC

 

I can look into this, sure, but it wouldn’t exactly solve my original problem, which is that I would like to turn this on wholesale, not definition by definition. It seems that all past discussion about this was in the context of a per-definition pragma (and sadly, a large part of that was bikeshedding over the name of the pragma…). But is the reason for that spelled out explicitly somewhere? In other words, what is the cost of specialisation, why would I ever not want to specialize a definition (inlinable or not)? I’d like to understand this first before reviving the proposal.

 

From: ghc-devs <ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Simon Peyton Jones
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 5:26 PM
To: Oleg Grenrus <oleg.grenrus@iki.fi>; ÉRDI Gergõ <gergo@erdi.hu>
Cc: GHC developers <ghc-devs@haskell.org>
Subject: [External] Re: Specialising NOINLINE functions

 

There is a (stale) ghc-proposal for that,
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/357

 

So there is!  Thank you.

 

Gergo: would you like to take over this proposal, revise it if necessary in the light of the comments, and submit it?

 

Simon

 

On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 10:08, Oleg Grenrus <oleg.grenrus@iki.fi> wrote:

There is a (stale) ghc-proposal for that,
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/357

- Oleg

On 6.5.2022 12.04, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> Dear devs
>
> At the moment the INLINEABLE pragma means "capture my right-hand side,
> regardless of how big it is, so that it can be type-class-specialised,
> including in other modules".  But it /also /says "feel free to inline me".
>
> Some users (eg Gergo) want to say NOINLINE on some functions. But for
> these they'd still like to generate type-class-specialised versions. 
> After all, if we aren't going to inline them, specialising is the next
> best thing.
>
> But we have no way to say both "specialise me" and "don't inline me",
> because you can't say both INLINEABLE and NOINLINE.  (That would look
> silly.)
>
> I think we should probably just bite the bullet and add a
> SPECIALISABLE pragma, /orthogonal to INLINE/NOINLNE/, which say
> "capture my right-hand side, regardless of how big it is, so that it
> can be type-class-specialised, including in other modules".  It
> behaves exactly like INLINEABLE except that  you can specify it along
> with INLINE/NOINLINE.
>
> Any thoughts?  Do you think this needs a GHC proposal?
>
> See #21036 <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/21036#note_407930>
>
>
> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs


This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries at https: //www.sc.com/en/our-locations

Where you have a Financial Markets relationship with Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries (the "Group"), information on the regulatory standards we adhere to and how it may affect you can be found in our Regulatory Compliance Statement at https: //www.sc.com/rcs/ and Regulatory Compliance Disclosures at http: //www.sc.com/rcs/fm

Insofar as this communication is not sent by the Global Research team and contains any market commentary, the market commentary has been prepared by the sales and/or trading desk of Standard Chartered Bank or its affiliate. It is not and does not constitute research material, independent research, recommendation or financial advice. Any market commentary is for information purpose only and shall not be relied on for any other purpose and is subject to the relevant disclaimers available at https: //www.sc.com/en/regulatory-disclosures/#market-disclaimer.

Insofar as this communication is sent by the Global Research team and contains any research materials prepared by members of the team, the research material is for information purpose only and shall not be relied on for any other purpose, and is subject to the relevant disclaimers available at https: //research.sc.com/research/api/application/static/terms-and-conditions.

Insofar as this e-mail contains the term sheet for a proposed transaction, by responding affirmatively to this e-mail, you agree that you have understood the terms and conditions in the attached term sheet and evaluated the merits and risks of the transaction. We may at times also request you to sign the term sheet to acknowledge the same.

Please visit https: //www.sc.com/en/regulatory-disclosures/dodd-frank/ for important information with respect to derivative products.