From looking at the code a bit more I'm pretty sure that only HsUserBang corresponds to what the user wrote and the remaining constructors are used to note the actual decision we made (e.g. are we going to unpack). Is that correct Simon PJ? If that is the case, why isn't this information split over two data types (which would make functions over HsBang simpler)?

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Alan & Kim Zimmerman wrote:

I know there was a bug in the parser related to setting the HsBang value, it could be that this whole area has just not received solid scrutiny before now.

Alan

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...

I also note that the definition of isBanged is confusing:

isBanged :: HsBang -> Bool isBanged HsNoBang = False isBanged (HsUserBang Nothing bang) = bang isBanged _ = True

Why is `HsUserBang (Just False) False`, corresponding to a NOUNPACK annotations with a missing "!", considered "banged"?

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...

HsBang is defined as:

-- HsBang describes what the *programmer* wrote -- This info is retained in the DataCon.dcStrictMarks field data HsBang = HsUserBang -- The user's source-code request (Maybe Bool) -- Just True {-# UNPACK #-} -- Just False {-# NOUNPACK #-} -- Nothing no pragma Bool -- True <=> '!' specified

| HsNoBang -- Lazy field -- HsUserBang Nothing False means the same as HsNoBang

| HsUnpack -- Definite commitment: this field is strict and unboxed (Maybe Coercion) -- co :: arg-ty ~ product-ty

| HsStrict -- Definite commitment: this field is strict but not unboxed

This data type is a bit unclear to me:

* What are the reasons for the following constructor overlaps? * `HsNoBang` and `HsUserBang Nothing False` * `HsStrict` and `HsUserBang Nothing True` * `HsUnpack mb_co` and `HsUserBang (Just True) True`

* Why is there a coercion in `HsUnpack` but not in `HsUserBang (Just True) True`?

* Is there a difference in what the user wrote in the case of HsUserBang and HsNoBang/HsUnpack/HsStrict e.g are the latter three generated by the compiler as opposed to being written by the user (the function documentation notwithstanding)?

A very related function is isBanged:

isBanged :: HsBang -> Bool isBanged HsNoBang = False isBanged (HsUserBang Nothing bang) = bang isBanged _ = True

What's the meaning of this function? Is it intended to communicate what the user wrote or whether result of what the user wrote results in a strict function?

Context: I'm adding a new StrictData language pragma [1] that makes fields strict by default and a '~' annotation of fields to reverse the default behavior. My intention is to change HsBang like so:

- Bool -- True <=> '!' specified + (Maybe Bool) -- True <=> '!' specified, False <=> '~' + -- specified, Nothing <=> unspecified

1. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/StrictPragma

-- Johan

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

Those comments and the renaming really help. Here are a couple of more questions I got after exploring some more: DsMeta.repBangTy look wrong to me: repBangTy :: LBangType Name -> DsM (Core (TH.StrictTypeQ)) repBangTy ty= do MkC s <- rep2 str [] MkC t <- repLTy ty' rep2 strictTypeName [s, t] where (str, ty') = case ty of L _ (HsBangTy (HsSrcBang (Just True) True) ty) -> (unpackedName, ty) L _ (HsBangTy (HsSrcBang _ True) ty) -> (isStrictName, ty) _ -> (notStrictName, ty) Shouldn't the second case look at whether -funbox-strict-fields or -funbox-small-strict-fields is set and use unpackedName instead of isStrictName if so? What is repBangTy for? A related question, in MkId.dataConArgRep we have: dataConArgRep _ _ arg_ty HsStrict = strict_but_not_unpacked arg_ty Here we're not looking at -funbox-strict-fields and -funbox-small-strict-fields. Is it the case that we only need to look at these flags in the case of HsSrcBang, because HsStrict can only be generated by us (and we presumably looked at the flags when we converted a HsSrcBang to a HsStrict)? On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

I’m glad you are getting back to strictness.

Good questions.

I’ve pushed (or will as soon as I have validated) a patch that adds type synonyms, updates comments (some of which were indeed misleading), and changes a few names for clarity and consistency. I hope that answers all your questions.

Except these:

· Why is there a coercion in `HsUnpack` but not in `HsUserBang (Just True) True`? Because the former is implementation generated but the latter is source code specified.

· Why isn't this information split over two data types. Because there’s a bit of overlap. See comments with HsSrcBang

Simon

*From:* Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com] *Sent:* 08 January 2015 07:36 *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org *Cc:* Simon Peyton Jones *Subject:* Clarification of HsBang and isBanged

HsBang is defined as:

-- HsBang describes what the *programmer* wrote

-- This info is retained in the DataCon.dcStrictMarks field

data HsBang

= HsUserBang -- The user's source-code request

(Maybe Bool) -- Just True {-# UNPACK #-}

-- Just False {-# NOUNPACK #-}

-- Nothing no pragma

Bool -- True <=> '!' specified

| HsNoBang -- Lazy field

-- HsUserBang Nothing False means the same as HsNoBang

| HsUnpack -- Definite commitment: this field is strict and unboxed

(Maybe Coercion) -- co :: arg-ty ~ product-ty

| HsStrict -- Definite commitment: this field is strict but not unboxed

This data type is a bit unclear to me:

* What are the reasons for the following constructor overlaps? * `HsNoBang` and `HsUserBang Nothing False` * `HsStrict` and `HsUserBang Nothing True` * `HsUnpack mb_co` and `HsUserBang (Just True) True`

* Why is there a coercion in `HsUnpack` but not in `HsUserBang (Just True) True`?

* Is there a difference in what the user wrote in the case of HsUserBang and HsNoBang/HsUnpack/HsStrict e.g are the latter three generated by the compiler as opposed to being written by the user (the function documentation notwithstanding)?

A very related function is isBanged:

isBanged :: HsBang -> Bool

isBanged HsNoBang = False

isBanged (HsUserBang Nothing bang) = bang

isBanged _ = True

What's the meaning of this function? Is it intended to communicate what the user wrote or whether result of what the user wrote results in a strict function?

Context: I'm adding a new StrictData language pragma [1] that makes fields strict by default and a '~' annotation of fields to reverse the default behavior. My intention is to change HsBang like so:

- Bool -- True <=> '!' specified + (Maybe Bool) -- True <=> '!' specified, False <=> '~' + -- specified, Nothing <=> unspecified

1. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/StrictPragma

-- Johan

Yet more questions. I think I'm on the wrong track. I was trying to change MkId.dataConArgRep in order to make user-defined fields get the right strictness. However, some debug tracing suggests that this function isn't used (or isn't only used) to compute the strictness and "unpackedness" of a data constructor defined in the module being compiled, but also for modules being imported. Is that correct? The code (including tests) is here: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/compare/601e345e5df6%5E...1cee34c71e80 The parser changes I'm making seem to not be quite right. I've changed the strict_mark parser in Parser.y to read: strict_mark :: { Located ([AddAnn],HsBang) } : '!' { sL1 $1 ([], HsSrcBang Nothing (Just True)) } | '~' { sL1 $1 ([], HsSrcBang Nothing (Just False)) } | '{-# UNPACK' '#-}' { sLL $1 $> ([mo $1,mc $2], HsSrcBang (Just True) Nothing) } | '{-# NOUNPACK' '#-}' { sLL $1 $> ([mo $1,mc $2], HsSrcBang (Just False) Nothing) } | '{-# UNPACK' '#-}' '!' { sLL $1 $> ([mo $1,mc $2], HsSrcBang (Just True) (Just True)) } | '{-# NOUNPACK' '#-}' '!' { sLL $1 $> ([mo $1,mc $2], HsSrcBang (Just False) (Just True)) } | '{-# UNPACK' '#-}' '~' { sLL $1 $> ([mo $1,mc $2], HsSrcBang (Just True) (Just False)) } | '{-# NOUNPACK' '#-}' '~' { sLL $1 $> ([mo $1,mc $2], HsSrcBang (Just False) (Just False)) } -- Although UNPACK with no '!' and UNPACK with '~' are illegal, we get a -- better error message if we parse them here but parsing this data type data Lazy a = L ~a gives this error DsStrictData.hs:14:1: parse error (possibly incorrect indentation or mismatched brackets) -- Johan On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

Yet another one. TcSplice.reifyStrict doesn't take the unboxing flags into account either. Should it?

reifyStrict :: DataCon.HsSrcBang -> TH.Strict reifyStrict HsNoBang = TH.NotStrict reifyStrict (HsSrcBang _ False) = TH.NotStrict reifyStrict (HsSrcBang (Just True) True) = TH.Unpacked reifyStrict (HsSrcBang _ True) = TH.IsStrict reifyStrict HsStrict = TH.IsStrict reifyStrict (HsUnpack {}) = TH.Unpacked

Should

reifyStrict (HsSrcBang _ True) = TH.IsStrict

be TH.Unpacked if we have -funbox-strict-fields?

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...

Those comments and the renaming really help. Here are a couple of more questions I got after exploring some more:

DsMeta.repBangTy look wrong to me:

repBangTy :: LBangType Name -> DsM (Core (TH.StrictTypeQ)) repBangTy ty= do MkC s <- rep2 str [] MkC t <- repLTy ty' rep2 strictTypeName [s, t] where (str, ty') = case ty of L _ (HsBangTy (HsSrcBang (Just True) True) ty) -> (unpackedName, ty) L _ (HsBangTy (HsSrcBang _ True) ty) -> (isStrictName, ty) _ -> (notStrictName, ty)

Shouldn't the second case look at whether -funbox-strict-fields or -funbox-small-strict-fields is set and use unpackedName instead of isStrictName if so? What is repBangTy for?

A related question, in MkId.dataConArgRep we have:

dataConArgRep _ _ arg_ty HsStrict = strict_but_not_unpacked arg_ty

Here we're not looking at -funbox-strict-fields and -funbox-small-strict-fields. Is it the case that we only need to look at these flags in the case of HsSrcBang, because HsStrict can only be generated by us (and we presumably looked at the flags when we converted a HsSrcBang to a HsStrict)?

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Simon Peyton Jones

...

wrote:

...

I’m glad you are getting back to strictness.

Good questions.

I’ve pushed (or will as soon as I have validated) a patch that adds type synonyms, updates comments (some of which were indeed misleading), and changes a few names for clarity and consistency. I hope that answers all your questions.

Except these:

· Why is there a coercion in `HsUnpack` but not in `HsUserBang (Just True) True`? Because the former is implementation generated but the latter is source code specified.

· Why isn't this information split over two data types. Because there’s a bit of overlap. See comments with HsSrcBang

Simon

*From:* Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com] *Sent:* 08 January 2015 07:36 *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org *Cc:* Simon Peyton Jones *Subject:* Clarification of HsBang and isBanged

HsBang is defined as:

-- HsBang describes what the *programmer* wrote

-- This info is retained in the DataCon.dcStrictMarks field

data HsBang

= HsUserBang -- The user's source-code request

(Maybe Bool) -- Just True {-# UNPACK #-}

-- Just False {-# NOUNPACK #-}

-- Nothing no pragma

Bool -- True <=> '!' specified

| HsNoBang -- Lazy field

-- HsUserBang Nothing False means the same as HsNoBang

| HsUnpack -- Definite commitment: this field is strict and unboxed

(Maybe Coercion) -- co :: arg-ty ~ product-ty

| HsStrict -- Definite commitment: this field is strict but not unboxed

This data type is a bit unclear to me:

* What are the reasons for the following constructor overlaps? * `HsNoBang` and `HsUserBang Nothing False` * `HsStrict` and `HsUserBang Nothing True` * `HsUnpack mb_co` and `HsUserBang (Just True) True`

* Why is there a coercion in `HsUnpack` but not in `HsUserBang (Just True) True`?

* Is there a difference in what the user wrote in the case of HsUserBang and HsNoBang/HsUnpack/HsStrict e.g are the latter three generated by the compiler as opposed to being written by the user (the function documentation notwithstanding)?

A very related function is isBanged:

isBanged :: HsBang -> Bool

isBanged HsNoBang = False

isBanged (HsUserBang Nothing bang) = bang

isBanged _ = True

What's the meaning of this function? Is it intended to communicate what the user wrote or whether result of what the user wrote results in a strict function?

Context: I'm adding a new StrictData language pragma [1] that makes fields strict by default and a '~' annotation of fields to reverse the default behavior. My intention is to change HsBang like so:

- Bool -- True <=> '!' specified + (Maybe Bool) -- True <=> '!' specified, False <=> '~' + -- specified, Nothing <=> unspecified

1. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/StrictPragma

-- Johan

No it shouldn’t. This is TH so we are trying to reify source code. If we have what the user wrote (a HsSrcBang) we just follow it. If we don’t (i.e. HsStrict/HsUnpack) then we just have to do the best we can Simon From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com] Sent: 11 January 2015 19:12 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org Subject: Re: Clarification of HsBang and isBanged Yet another one. TcSplice.reifyStrict doesn't take the unboxing flags into account either. Should it? reifyStrict :: DataCon.HsSrcBang -> TH.Strict reifyStrict HsNoBang = TH.NotStrict reifyStrict (HsSrcBang _ False) = TH.NotStrict reifyStrict (HsSrcBang (Just True) True) = TH.Unpacked reifyStrict (HsSrcBang _ True) = TH.IsStrict reifyStrict HsStrict = TH.IsStrict reifyStrict (HsUnpack {}) = TH.Unpacked Should reifyStrict (HsSrcBang _ True) = TH.IsStrict be TH.Unpacked if we have -funbox-strict-fields? On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Johan Tibell mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com> wrote: Those comments and the renaming really help. Here are a couple of more questions I got after exploring some more: DsMeta.repBangTy look wrong to me: repBangTy :: LBangType Name -> DsM (Core (TH.StrictTypeQ)) repBangTy ty= do MkC s <- rep2 str [] MkC t <- repLTy ty' rep2 strictTypeName [s, t] where (str, ty') = case ty of L _ (HsBangTy (HsSrcBang (Just True) True) ty) -> (unpackedName, ty) L _ (HsBangTy (HsSrcBang _ True) ty) -> (isStrictName, ty) _ -> (notStrictName, ty) Shouldn't the second case look at whether -funbox-strict-fields or -funbox-small-strict-fields is set and use unpackedName instead of isStrictName if so? What is repBangTy for? A related question, in MkId.dataConArgRep we have: dataConArgRep _ _ arg_ty HsStrict = strict_but_not_unpacked arg_ty Here we're not looking at -funbox-strict-fields and -funbox-small-strict-fields. Is it the case that we only need to look at these flags in the case of HsSrcBang, because HsStrict can only be generated by us (and we presumably looked at the flags when we converted a HsSrcBang to a HsStrict)? On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote: I’m glad you are getting back to strictness. Good questions. I’ve pushed (or will as soon as I have validated) a patch that adds type synonyms, updates comments (some of which were indeed misleading), and changes a few names for clarity and consistency. I hope that answers all your questions. Except these: • Why is there a coercion in `HsUnpack` but not in `HsUserBang (Just True) True`? Because the former is implementation generated but the latter is source code specified. • Why isn't this information split over two data types. Because there’s a bit of overlap. See comments with HsSrcBang Simon From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.commailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com] Sent: 08 January 2015 07:36 To: ghc-devs@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org Cc: Simon Peyton Jones Subject: Clarification of HsBang and isBanged HsBang is defined as: -- HsBang describes what the *programmer* wrote -- This info is retained in the DataCon.dcStrictMarks field data HsBang = HsUserBang -- The user's source-code request (Maybe Bool) -- Just True {-# UNPACK #-} -- Just False {-# NOUNPACK #-} -- Nothing no pragma Bool -- True <=> '!' specified | HsNoBang -- Lazy field -- HsUserBang Nothing False means the same as HsNoBang | HsUnpack -- Definite commitment: this field is strict and unboxed (Maybe Coercion) -- co :: arg-ty ~ product-ty | HsStrict -- Definite commitment: this field is strict but not unboxed This data type is a bit unclear to me: * What are the reasons for the following constructor overlaps? * `HsNoBang` and `HsUserBang Nothing False` * `HsStrict` and `HsUserBang Nothing True` * `HsUnpack mb_co` and `HsUserBang (Just True) True` * Why is there a coercion in `HsUnpack` but not in `HsUserBang (Just True) True`? * Is there a difference in what the user wrote in the case of HsUserBang and HsNoBang/HsUnpack/HsStrict e.g are the latter three generated by the compiler as opposed to being written by the user (the function documentation notwithstanding)? A very related function is isBanged: isBanged :: HsBang -> Bool isBanged HsNoBang = False isBanged (HsUserBang Nothing bang) = bang isBanged _ = True What's the meaning of this function? Is it intended to communicate what the user wrote or whether result of what the user wrote results in a strict function? Context: I'm adding a new StrictData language pragma [1] that makes fields strict by default and a '~' annotation of fields to reverse the default behavior. My intention is to change HsBang like so: - Bool -- True <=> '!' specified + (Maybe Bool) -- True <=> '!' specified, False <=> '~' + -- specified, Nothing <=> unspecified 1. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/StrictPragma -- Johan

Shouldn't the second case look at whether -funbox-strict-fields or -funbox-small-strict-fields is set and use unpackedName instead of isStrictName if so? What is repBangTy for? No, we are generating code that, when run, will generate the TH data structure for a data type declaration. That is, source code. That source code might get compiled with –O or –funbox-strict-fields or whatever... but that comes later. At this point we are just generating source code. Simon From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com] Sent: 11 January 2015 17:28 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org Subject: Re: Clarification of HsBang and isBanged Those comments and the renaming really help. Here are a couple of more questions I got after exploring some more: DsMeta.repBangTy look wrong to me: repBangTy :: LBangType Name -> DsM (Core (TH.StrictTypeQ)) repBangTy ty= do MkC s <- rep2 str [] MkC t <- repLTy ty' rep2 strictTypeName [s, t] where (str, ty') = case ty of L _ (HsBangTy (HsSrcBang (Just True) True) ty) -> (unpackedName, ty) L _ (HsBangTy (HsSrcBang _ True) ty) -> (isStrictName, ty) _ -> (notStrictName, ty) Shouldn't the second case look at whether -funbox-strict-fields or -funbox-small-strict-fields is set and use unpackedName instead of isStrictName if so? What is repBangTy for? A related question, in MkId.dataConArgRep we have: dataConArgRep _ _ arg_ty HsStrict = strict_but_not_unpacked arg_ty Here we're not looking at -funbox-strict-fields and -funbox-small-strict-fields. Is it the case that we only need to look at these flags in the case of HsSrcBang, because HsStrict can only be generated by us (and we presumably looked at the flags when we converted a HsSrcBang to a HsStrict)? On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote: I’m glad you are getting back to strictness. Good questions. I’ve pushed (or will as soon as I have validated) a patch that adds type synonyms, updates comments (some of which were indeed misleading), and changes a few names for clarity and consistency. I hope that answers all your questions. Except these: • Why is there a coercion in `HsUnpack` but not in `HsUserBang (Just True) True`? Because the former is implementation generated but the latter is source code specified. • Why isn't this information split over two data types. Because there’s a bit of overlap. See comments with HsSrcBang Simon From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.commailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com] Sent: 08 January 2015 07:36 To: ghc-devs@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org Cc: Simon Peyton Jones Subject: Clarification of HsBang and isBanged HsBang is defined as: -- HsBang describes what the *programmer* wrote -- This info is retained in the DataCon.dcStrictMarks field data HsBang = HsUserBang -- The user's source-code request (Maybe Bool) -- Just True {-# UNPACK #-} -- Just False {-# NOUNPACK #-} -- Nothing no pragma Bool -- True <=> '!' specified | HsNoBang -- Lazy field -- HsUserBang Nothing False means the same as HsNoBang | HsUnpack -- Definite commitment: this field is strict and unboxed (Maybe Coercion) -- co :: arg-ty ~ product-ty | HsStrict -- Definite commitment: this field is strict but not unboxed This data type is a bit unclear to me: * What are the reasons for the following constructor overlaps? * `HsNoBang` and `HsUserBang Nothing False` * `HsStrict` and `HsUserBang Nothing True` * `HsUnpack mb_co` and `HsUserBang (Just True) True` * Why is there a coercion in `HsUnpack` but not in `HsUserBang (Just True) True`? * Is there a difference in what the user wrote in the case of HsUserBang and HsNoBang/HsUnpack/HsStrict e.g are the latter three generated by the compiler as opposed to being written by the user (the function documentation notwithstanding)? A very related function is isBanged: isBanged :: HsBang -> Bool isBanged HsNoBang = False isBanged (HsUserBang Nothing bang) = bang isBanged _ = True What's the meaning of this function? Is it intended to communicate what the user wrote or whether result of what the user wrote results in a strict function? Context: I'm adding a new StrictData language pragma [1] that makes fields strict by default and a '~' annotation of fields to reverse the default behavior. My intention is to change HsBang like so: - Bool -- True <=> '!' specified + (Maybe Bool) -- True <=> '!' specified, False <=> '~' + -- specified, Nothing <=> unspecified 1. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/StrictPragma -- Johan