Re: defunctionalization

I think that would work, but I was looking for something more precise. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Farmer wrote:

What happens when you put NOINLINE on the function and compile with -fexpose-all-unfoldings? Does that get the behavior you want?

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones

...

wrote:

...

It seems a little weird, but the internal data types can express it, so if you can make the front end do the right thing I’d be happy to take it. (Don’t forget the manual.)****

** **

SImon****

** **

*From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicolas Frisby *Sent:* 16 July 2013 21:29 *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: defunctionalization****

** **

Ah, I misread that TidyPgm function.It looks like if I build the CoreUnfolding, GHC will respect it. It's just rejecting the pragma combination in HsSyn.****

On Jul 16, 2013 3:22 PM, "Nicolas Frisby" wrote:

...

I'd like to put a NOINLINE and an INLINABLE pragma on a binding.

(I'm sketching a defunctionalization pass. I'd like the 'apply` routine

RHS to make it into the interface file, but I do not want it to be inlined, since that'd undo the defunctionalization.)

...

In other words, I'd like a CoreUnfolding value with the uf_guidance =

UnfNever.

...

It seems TidyPgm.addExternal ignores such a core unfolding.

Would GHC consider a patch to make this work?

Thanks.****

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