Re: let-bindings floating more easily, would a check for `exprIsOkForSpeculation scrut` in theory suffice to float out cases? Yes; but instead we simply turn such cases into lets. Simon From: Sebastian Graf [mailto:sgraf1337@gmail.com] Sent: 02 November 2017 08:33 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: ghc-devs Subject: Re: When does GHC produce unlifted `let` bindings? Thanks both of you, that makes sense. Re: let-bindings floating more easily, would a check for `exprIsOkForSpeculation scrut` in theory suffice to float out cases? On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote: See Note [CoreSyn let/app invariant] in CoreSyn. Briefly, you can write let x::Int# = e in … if e is “ok-for-speculation”. See extensive comments in CoreUtils on what that means. You could also use case, but let-bindings “float” more easily than cases, because they are not worried about preserving exception behaviour. Simon From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Graf Sent: 29 October 2017 21:07 To: ghc-devs mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org> Subject: When does GHC produce unlifted `let` bindings? Hi folks, I was debugging a Core-to-Core transform for TEST=spec-inlinehttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fblob%2Ffe04f3783b662c52c4a0ff36b2d62a7a575998a5%2Ftestsuite%2Ftests%2FsimplCore%2Fshould_compile%2Fspec-inline.hs&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C77699e26801a4d458b9a08d51f11085f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636449080385955811&sdata=t%2BAXQszqKfFRYNjjLJtMHpLsS2RzwTaBFA42JuLBN4o%3D&reserved=0 and was wondering (yet again) why GHC produces unlifted `let` bindings in Core like it seems supposed to be doinghttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fblob%2Ffe04f3783b662c52c4a0ff36b2d62a7a575998a5%2Ftestsuite%2Ftests%2FsimplCore%2Fshould_compile%2Fspec-inline.stderr%23L68-L76&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C77699e26801a4d458b9a08d51f11085f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636449080385955811&sdata=pVNrzDY%2ByfK%2FVl%2Fk8B5P0HuGC6PG5kD7mHiwa0Vck9o%3D&reserved=0. * Why doesn't this use `case` instead? * Is there a semantic difference? * Can `case` be used with unlifted types? * And if not, why can `let`? Unlifted `let` seems much close to `case` than to `let`. Some GHC passes seem to agree.https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fsearch%3Fl%3DHaskell%26q%3D%2522strict%2Blet%2522%26type%3D%26utf8%3D%25E2%259C%2593&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C77699e26801a4d458b9a08d51f11085f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636449080385955811&sdata=ksdZGbGyw6%2FLEIMiJpCaHlDh4iipdkKcSCEDdTySExk%3D&reserved=0 Cheers, Sebastian