RE: Static data and RULES

17 Feb 2017

      {-# RULES   "L" LCon1 0 = LCon2
Oh I missed this entirely. You want to write a rule FOR a data constructor????   I thought you just meant one that matches on a data constructor.
That is you want (L 0) to rewrite, all by itself, to LCon2?  That had never occurred to me as a possibility.  Bizarre.
Let’s not do that.

·         GHC does not (knowingly) support it today

·         It is a deeply weird thing to do

·         If you want to do it, write you own “smart constructor” mkLCon1, that inlines when you say

mkLCon1 x = LCon1 x

{-# INILNE [0] mkLCon1 #-}

{-# RULES “L” mkLCon1 x = LCon2 #-}

Problem solved.
Simon

From: David Feuer [mailto:david.feuer@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 February 2017 00:30
To: Simon Peyton Jones 
Cc: ghc-devs ; Reid Barton ; Ben Gamari 
Subject: RE: Static data and RULES

Let me give an example. Suppose we have

data L = LCon1 Int | LCon2
data S = SCon !Int

{-# RULES
"L" LCon1 0 = LCon2
"S" forall x . f (SCon x) = g x
 #-}

The immediate problem today is with "S". The SCon wrapper could very well inline before the rule has a chance to fire. We'd like to be able to phase that inline to give it a chance.

The "L" rule becomes problematic when we try to identify static data the simplifier shouldn't have to try to optimize. If it identifies LCon 0 as static, the "L" rule will never fire.

On Feb 16, 2017 7:08 PM, "David Feuer" mailto:david.feuer@gmail.com> wrote:
Semantically, the proposed scheme is very nearly equivalent to breaking *every* data constructor into a worker and a wrapper, and allowing INLINE and NOINLINE pragmas on the wrappers. That would allow terms built only from constructor workers and literals to be identified as they're constructed in any stage and left alone by the simplifier. It would also allow people using RULES that match on constructors to make those work reliably, by making sure the bindings they match on don't inline away or get marked static too early. Of course, we don't actually need to add more worker/wrapper pairs to do this; we can fake that.

On Feb 16, 2017 6:53 PM, "Simon Peyton Jones" mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:
I’m sorry I still don’t understand the problem.  Can you give an example?  It all works fine today; what will change in the proposed new scheme.  Indeed what IS the proposed new scheme?

I’m lost

Simon

From: David Feuer [mailto:david.feuer@gmail.commailto:david.feuer@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 February 2017 23:51
To: Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com>
Cc: ghc-devs mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>; Reid Barton mailto:rwbarton@gmail.com>; Ben Gamari mailto:bgamari@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Static data and RULES

Sorry; guess I should have given more background on that. This goes back to the performance problems Ben encountered in Typeable. The goal is to avoid trying to optimize something over and over that's never ever going to change. If we know that a term is made only of static data, we can skip it altogether in simplification. Suppose we have

foo = Just (Right [1])

Then no amount of optimization will ever be useful. But what about RULES? If the outermost pattern in a rule matches on a data constructor, then it's not static anymore! We may be replacing it with something else. So we need a finer mechanism. We *also* need a finer mechanism for strict constructors in general. We need to avoid inlining those too early if they're mentioned in any position in RULES. Trying to make this work right automagically looks a bit tricky in the face of orphan rules and such.

On Feb 16, 2017 6:35 PM, "Simon Peyton Jones" mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:
I don’t understand any of this.

However, RULES are allowed to match on data constructors and it would be nice to let that keep happening.

Why won’t it keep happening?  What is the problem you are trying to solve?  Why does the fast-path make it harder?

Maybe open a ticket?

Simon

From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of David Feuer
Sent: 16 February 2017 22:13
To: Ben Gamari mailto:bgamari@gmail.com>; Reid Barton mailto:rwbarton@gmail.com>
Cc: ghc-devs mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>
Subject: Static data and RULES

Ben Gamari and Reid Barton are interested in making it cheaper for static data to pass through simplification. The basic idea is that if a term is already made entirely of data constructors and literals, then there's nothing left to optimize.

However, RULES are allowed to match on data constructors and it would be nice to let that keep happening. But on the other hand, RULES are apparently (according to Duncan Coutts) already broken for strict data constructors, because they have workers and wrappers.

My thought: let's allow phased INLINE and NOINLINE pragmas for data constructors. The default would be INLINE. The ~ phase choice would not be available: once inline, always inline.

Semantics
~~~~~~~~~~

For all constructors:

If a constructor is allowed by pragmas to inline in a certain phase, then in that phase terms built from it can be considered static. Once static, always static.

If a constructor is not allowed to inline in a certain phase, terms built from it will be considered non-static.

After demand analysis and worker/wrapper, all constructors are considered inline.

For strict constructors:

A strict constructor wrapper prohibited from inlining in a certain phase simply will not.

Strict constructor wrappers will all be allowed to inline after demand analysis and worker/wrapper. This matches the way we now handle wrappers actually created in that phase.

Syntax:

For GADT syntax, this is easy:

data Foo ... where
  {-# INLINE [1] Bar #-}
  Bar :: ...

For traditional syntax, I think it's probably best to pull the pragmas to the top:

{-# NOINLINE Quux #-}
data Baz ... = Quux ... | ...