March 2014 - ghc-tickets

[GHC] #8848: Warning: Rule too complicated to desugar
by GHC 01 Dec '16

01 Dec '16

#8848: Warning: Rule too complicated to desugar ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: carter | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.1-rc2 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: None/Unknown Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- I've a very very modest application of Specialize to fixed sized lists in some of my code which seems to trip up the specialization machinery. Is there any flags I can pass GHC to make sure it doesn't give up on these specialize calls? is the only work around to write my own monomorphic versions and add some hand written rewrite rules?! {{{ rc/Numerical/Types/Shape.hs:225:1: Warning: RULE left-hand side too complicated to desugar let { $dFunctor_a3XB :: Functor (Shape ('S 'Z)) [LclId, Str=DmdType] $dFunctor_a3XB = Numerical.Types.Shape.$fFunctorShape @ 'Z $dFunctor_a3Rn } in map2 @ a @ b @ c @ ('S ('S 'Z)) (Numerical.Types.Shape.$fApplicativeShape @ ('S 'Z) (Numerical.Types.Shape.$fFunctorShape @ ('S 'Z) $dFunctor_a3XB) (Numerical.Types.Shape.$fApplicativeShape @ 'Z $dFunctor_a3XB Numerical.Types.Shape.$fApplicativeShape0)) src/Numerical/Types/Shape.hs:226:1: Warning: RULE left-hand side too complicated to desugar let { $dFunctor_a3XG :: Functor (Shape ('S 'Z)) [LclId, Str=DmdType] $dFunctor_a3XG = Numerical.Types.Shape.$fFunctorShape @ 'Z $dFunctor_a3Rn } in let { $dFunctor_a3XF :: Functor (Shape ('S ('S 'Z))) [LclId, Str=DmdType] $dFunctor_a3XF = Numerical.Types.Shape.$fFunctorShape @ ('S 'Z) $dFunctor_a3XG } in map2 @ a @ b @ c @ ('S ('S ('S 'Z))) (Numerical.Types.Shape.$fApplicativeShape @ ('S ('S 'Z)) (Numerical.Types.Shape.$fFunctorShape @ ('S ('S 'Z)) $dFunctor_a3XF) (Numerical.Types.Shape.$fApplicativeShape @ ('S 'Z) $dFunctor_a3XF (Numerical.Types.Shape.$fApplicativeShape @ 'Z $dFunctor_a3XG Numerical.Types.Shape.$fApplicativeShape0))) }}} the associated code (smashed into a single module ) is {{{ {-# LANGUAGE DataKinds, GADTs, TypeFamilies, ScopedTypeVariables #-} {-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-} {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-} {-# LANGUAGE BangPatterns #-} {-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-} {-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-} {-# LANGUAGE FunctionalDependencies #-} {-# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances #-} {-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-} {-# LANGUAGE StandaloneDeriving #-} {-# LANGUAGE CPP #-} {-# LANGUAGE DeriveFunctor #-} {-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-} {-# LANGUAGE NoImplicitPrelude #-} module Numerical.Types.Shape where import GHC.Magic import Data.Data import Data.Typeable() import Data.Type.Equality import qualified Data.Monoid as M import qualified Data.Functor as Fun import qualified Data.Foldable as F import qualified Control.Applicative as A import Prelude hiding (foldl,foldr,init,scanl,scanr,scanl1,scanr1) data Nat = S !Nat | Z deriving (Eq,Show,Read,Typeable,Data) #if defined(__GLASGOW_HASKELL_) && (__GLASGOW_HASKELL__ >= 707) deriving instance Typeable 'Z deriving instance Typeable 'S #endif type family n1 + n2 where Z + n2 = n2 (S n1') + n2 = S (n1' + n2) -- singleton for Nat data SNat :: Nat -> * where SZero :: SNat Z SSucc :: SNat n -> SNat (S n) --gcoerce :: (a :~: b) -> ((a ~ b) => r) -> r --gcoerce Refl x = x --gcoerce = gcastWith -- inductive proof of right-identity of + plus_id_r :: SNat n -> ((n + Z) :~: n) plus_id_r SZero = Refl plus_id_r (SSucc n) = gcastWith (plus_id_r n) Refl -- inductive proof of simplification on the rhs of + plus_succ_r :: SNat n1 -> Proxy n2 -> ((n1 + (S n2)) :~: (S (n1 + n2))) plus_succ_r SZero _ = Refl plus_succ_r (SSucc n1) proxy_n2 = gcastWith (plus_succ_r n1 proxy_n2) Refl type N0 = Z type N1= S N0 type N2 = S N1 type N3 = S N2 type N4 = S N3 type N5 = S N4 type N6 = S N5 type N7 = S N6 type N8 = S N7 type N9 = S N8 type N10 = S N9 {- Need to sort out packed+unboxed vs generic approaches see ShapeAlternatives/ for -} infixr 3 :* {- the concern basically boils down to "will it specialize / inline well" -} newtype At a = At a deriving (Eq, Ord, Read, Show, Typeable, Functor) data Shape (rank :: Nat) a where Nil :: Shape Z a (:*) :: !(a) -> !(Shape r a ) -> Shape (S r) a --deriving (Show) #if defined(__GLASGOW_HASKELL_) && (__GLASGOW_HASKELL__ >= 707) deriving instance Typeable Shape #endif instance Eq (Shape Z a) where (==) _ _ = True instance (Eq a,Eq (Shape s a))=> Eq (Shape (S s) a ) where (==) (a:* as) (b:* bs) = (a == b) && (as == bs ) instance Show (Shape Z a) where show _ = "Nil" instance (Show a, Show (Shape s a))=> Show (Shape (S s) a) where show (a:* as) = show a ++ " :* " ++ show as -- at some point also try data model that -- has layout be dynamicly reified, but for now -- keep it phantom typed for sanity / forcing static dispatch. -- NB: may need to make it more general at some future point --data Strided r a lay = Strided { getStrides :: Shape r a } {-# INLINE reverseShape #-} reverseShape :: Shape n a -> Shape n a reverseShape Nil = Nil reverseShape list = go SZero Nil list where go :: SNat n1 -> Shape n1 a-> Shape n2 a -> Shape (n1 + n2) a go snat acc Nil = gcastWith (plus_id_r snat) acc go snat acc (h :* (t :: Shape n3 a)) = gcastWith (plus_succ_r snat (Proxy :: Proxy n3)) (go (SSucc snat) (h :* acc) t) instance Fun.Functor (Shape Z) where fmap = \ _ Nil -> Nil --{-# INLINE fmap #-} instance (Fun.Functor (Shape r)) => Fun.Functor (Shape (S r)) where fmap = \ f (a :* rest) -> f a :* Fun.fmap f rest --{-# INLINE fmap #-} instance A.Applicative (Shape Z) where pure = \ _ -> Nil --{-# INLINE pure #-} (<*>) = \ _ _ -> Nil --{-# INLINE (<*>) #-} instance A.Applicative (Shape r)=> A.Applicative (Shape (S r)) where pure = \ a -> a :* (A.pure a) --{-# INLINE pure #-} (<*>) = \ (f:* fs) (a :* as) -> f a :* (inline (A.<*>)) fs as --{-# INLINE (<*>) #-} instance F.Foldable (Shape Z) where foldMap = \ _ _ -> M.mempty --{-# fold #-} foldl = \ _ init _ -> init foldr = \ _ init _ -> init foldr' = \_ !init _ -> init foldl' = \_ !init _ -> init instance (F.Foldable (Shape r)) => F.Foldable (Shape (S r)) where foldMap = \f (a:* as) -> f a M.<> F.foldMap f as foldl' = \f !init (a :* as) -> let next = f init a in next `seq` F.foldl f next as foldr' = \f !init (a :* as ) -> f a $! F.foldr f init as foldl = \f init (a :* as) -> let next = f init a in F.foldl f next as foldr = \f init (a :* as ) -> f a $ F.foldr f init as -- map2 :: (A.Applicative (Shape r))=> (a->b ->c) -> (Shape r a) -> (Shape r b) -> (Shape r c ) map2 = \f l r -> A.pure f A.<*> l A.<*> r {-# SPECIALIZE map2 :: (a->b->c)-> (Shape Z a )-> Shape Z b -> Shape Z c #-} {-# SPECIALIZE map2 :: (a->b->c)-> (Shape (S Z) a )-> Shape (S Z) b -> Shape (S Z) c #-} {-# SPECIALIZE map2 :: (a->b->c)-> (Shape (S (S Z)) a )-> Shape (S (S Z)) b -> Shape (S (S Z)) c #-} {-# SPECIALIZE map2 :: (a->b->c)-> (Shape (S (S(S Z))) a )-> Shape (S (S (S Z))) b -> Shape (S (S(S Z))) c #-} -- {-# INLINABLE map2 #-} }}} -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8848> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 17

[GHC] #8300: split-objs doesn't split on LLVM
by GHC 22 Nov '16

22 Nov '16

#8300: split-objs doesn't split on LLVM ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: rwbarton | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler (LLVM) | Version: 7.7 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: None/Unknown Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- `-split-objs` is allowed with `-fllvm`, but it doesn't really do anything. E.g. in my perf-llvm build I have a `libHSbase-4.7.0.0.a` with `Applicative__1.o`, `Arrow__1.o` etc. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8300> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 4

[GHC] #8321: improve basic block layout on LLVM backend by predicting stack/heap checks
by GHC 17 Nov '16

17 Nov '16

#8321: improve basic block layout on LLVM backend by predicting stack/heap checks ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: rwbarton | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.10.1 Component: Compiler (LLVM) | Version: 7.7 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: None/Unknown Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Currently we don't give the LLVM optimizer any information about which branch of an `if` is likely to be taken. As a result, the optimizer is likely to produce a basic block layout which is not optimal. Improving the layout can improve performance through better instruction cache usage and better branch prediction by the hardware. We can control LLVM's idea of what is likely with the `llvm.expect` intrinsic function. Some obvious branches which we can predict accurately are the stack and heap checks that appear near the entry of many functions. Here's a small example of some Cmm code and the output of the LLVM optimizer/compiler. {{{ block_c2Lc_entry() // [R1, R2] { info_tbl: [(c2Lc, label: block_c2Lc_info rep:StackRep [])] stack_info: arg_space: 0 updfr_space: Nothing } {offset c2Lc: Hp = Hp + 24; if (Hp > HpLim) goto c2Lm; else goto c2Ll; c2Lm: HpAlloc = 24; R2 = R2; R1 = R1; call stg_gc_pp(R2, R1) args: 8, res: 8, upd: 24; c2Ll: I64[Hp - 16] = :_con_info; P64[Hp - 8] = R1; P64[Hp] = R2; R1 = Hp - 14; Sp = Sp + 8; call (P64[Sp])(R1) args: 24, res: 0, upd: 24; } }] }}} {{{ 00000000000002b8 <c2Lc_info>: 2b8: 4c 89 e0 mov %r12,%rax 2bb: 4c 8d 60 18 lea 0x18(%rax),%r12 2bf: 4d 3b a5 18 01 00 00 cmp 0x118(%r13),%r12 2c6: 76 10 jbe 2d8 <c2Lc_info+0x20> 2c8: 49 c7 85 48 01 00 00 movq $0x18,0x148(%r13) 2cf: 18 00 00 00 2d3: e9 00 00 00 00 jmpq 2d8 <c2Lc_info+0x20> 2d4: R_X86_64_PC32 stg_gc_pp+0xfffffffffffffffc 2d8: 48 c7 40 08 00 00 00 movq $0x0,0x8(%rax) 2df: 00 2dc: R_X86_64_32S ghczmprim_GHCziTypes_ZC_con_info 2e0: 48 89 58 10 mov %rbx,0x10(%rax) 2e4: 4c 89 70 18 mov %r14,0x18(%rax) 2e8: 48 8b 45 08 mov 0x8(%rbp),%rax 2ec: 48 83 c5 08 add $0x8,%rbp 2f0: 49 8d 5c 24 f2 lea -0xe(%r12),%rbx 2f5: ff e0 jmpq *%rax 2f7: 90 nop }}} It would likely be better to invert the branch at `2c6` to a `ja`, so that the common case is adjacent to the function entry, and when `llvm.expect` is used on the condition in the branch, the LLVM optimizer does produce this alternate layout. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8321> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 5

[GHC] #8870: GHC 7.8.0 RC2 fails when compiling a hello world program on Windows 7 32bits
by GHC 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

#8870: GHC 7.8.0 RC2 fails when compiling a hello world program on Windows 7 32bits ----------------------------+--------------------------------------- Reporter: facundoq | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: highest | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.1-rc2 Keywords: | Operating System: Windows Architecture: x86 | Type of failure: Compile-time crash Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ----------------------------+--------------------------------------- Windows shows a window that says "GHC has stopped working" when compiling a simple hello world. Steps to reproduce 1) Download GHC 7.8 RC2 (http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/7.8.1-rc2/ghc-7.8.0.20140228-i386 -unknown-mingw32.tar.bz2) 2) Extract the contents of the tar to folder $GHC$ 3) Add $GHC$\bin and $GHC$\mingw\bin folder to the PATH, add env var "LANG=C". 4) Create file test.hs with contents: main = putStrLn "Hello, World!" 5) run "ghc test.hs". Interestingly, the error is not deterministic, ie, after running the command several times the program gets compiled. When that happens, and ff the file test.o is not deleted, further attempts to compile run succesfully. GHCi appears to work normally (when doing simple tests). More details: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22291739/cant-install-packages-with- cabal-using-ghc-7-8rc2-and-windows-7 -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8870> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 22

[GHC] #8774: Transitivity of Auto-Specialization
by GHC 28 Sep '16

28 Sep '16

#8774: Transitivity of Auto-Specialization -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: crockeea | Status: new Type: bug | Milestone: Priority: | Version: 7.6.3 normal | Operating System: Linux Component: | Type of failure: Compile-time performance bug Compiler | Test Case: Keywords: | Blocking: Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple | Difficulty: | Unknown | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: 5928, | 8668, 8099 | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- From [http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.6.3/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#idp4986… the docs]: [Y]ou often don't even need the SPECIALIZE pragma in the first place. When compiling a module M, GHC's optimiser (with -O) automatically considers each top-level overloaded function declared in M, and specialises it for the different types at which it is called in M. The optimiser also considers each imported INLINABLE overloaded function, and specialises it for the different types at which it is called in M. ... Moreover, given a SPECIALIZE pragma for a function f, GHC will automatically create specialisations for any type-class-overloaded functions called by f, if they are in the same module as the SPECIALIZE pragma, or if they are INLINABLE; and so on, transitively. So GHC should automatically specialize some/most/all(?) functions marked `INLINABLE` ''without'' a pragma, and if I use an explicit pragma, the specialization is transitive. My question is: is the ''auto''-specialization transitive? Either way, I'd like to see the docs updated to answer this question. Specifically, the attached files demonstrate a bug if auto-specialization ''should'' be transitive. Main.hs: {{{ #!haskell import Data.Vector.Unboxed as U import Foo main = let y = Bar $ Qux $ U.replicate 11221184 0 :: Foo (Qux Int) (Bar (Qux ans)) = iterate (plus y) y !! 100 in putStr $ show $ foldl1' (*) ans }}} Foo.hs: {{{ #!haskell module Foo (Qux(..), Foo(..), plus) where import Data.Vector.Unboxed as U newtype Qux r = Qux (Vector r) -- GHC inlines `plus` if I remove the bangs or the Baz constructor data Foo t = Bar !t | Baz !t instance (Num r, Unbox r) => Num (Qux r) where {-# INLINABLE (+) #-} (Qux x) + (Qux y) = Qux $ U.zipWith (+) x y {-# INLINABLE plus #-} plus :: (Num t) => (Foo t) -> (Foo t) -> (Foo t) plus (Bar v1) (Bar v2) = Bar $ v1 + v2 }}} GHC specializes the call to `plus`, but does *not* specialize `(+)` in the `Qux` `Num` instance. (In the attached core excerpt: `main6` calls `iterate main8`. `main8` is just `plus`, specialized for `Int`. So far so good. However, `splus` calls the *polymorphic* `c+`. If auto- specialization is transitive, I expect `c+` to be specialized to `Int`.) This kills performance: an explicit pragma `{-# SPECIALIZE plus :: Foo (Qux Int) -> Foo (Qux Int) -> Foo (Qux Int) #-}` results in ''transitive'' specialization as the docs indicate, so `(+)` is specialized and the code is 30x faster. Is this expected behavior? Should I only expect `(+)` to be specialized transitively with an explicit pragma? Note: this question is different from #5928 for two reasons: 1. I believe that no inlining is occuring, and hence I don't think inlining is interfering with specialization 2. I have `INLINABLE` pragmas on all relevant functions. Note: this question is different from #8668 because I am asking about ''auto''-specialization. This question was originally posted on [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21502335/transitivity-of-auto- specialization-in-ghc StackOverflow]. As mentioned in the comments of that question, I am intentionally ''not'' fully applying the call to `plus` in Main, contrary to the suggestions in #8099. I'd love to see why I'm getting that behavior as well. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8774> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 17

[GHC] #8523: blowup in space/time for type checking and object size for high arity tuples
by GHC 24 Sep '16

24 Sep '16

#8523: blowup in space/time for type checking and object size for high arity tuples -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: carter | Status: new Type: bug | Milestone: Priority: | Version: 7.6.3 normal | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Component: | Type of failure: Compile-time performance bug Compiler | Test Case: Keywords: | Blocking: Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple | Difficulty: | Unknown | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Eric Mertens found a compilation performance issue in how GHC handles type class instance methods with many equality constraints and large arity tuples. basically using equality constraints to force 62 variables equal, instead of using the same variable for all the tuple slots, make the type checking time go from 0.9 seconds and very little memory to ~20 seconds and ~ 700mb of ram, along with going from ~ 7,000 coercions to 700,000-400,000 coercions, and object file size of 143kb to an object file size of 2.8mb-3.1mb I'm attaching 2 variants Tuple.hs and NeighborTuple.hs that exhibit the blowup behavior, and MonoTuple.hs (better named PolyTuple.hs but thats a side detail) that doesn't exhibit the blow up behavior. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8523> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 4

[GHC] #8099: Alternate syntax for indicating when a function is "fully applied" for purposes of inlining
by GHC 04 Aug '16

04 Aug '16

#8099: Alternate syntax for indicating when a function is "fully applied" for purposes of inlining ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: jberryman | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.6.3 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: None/Unknown Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- I just remembered an old idea I put to the GHC user's list [http://www .mail-archive.com/glasgow-haskell-users(a)haskell.org/msg22119.html here], and thought I should present it here. As I understand it GHC inlines inlines only after a function is fully applied with respect to the syntactic left-hand side, so in order to control inlining and sharing, we sometimes see strange things like: {{{ {-# INLINE foo #-} foo :: a -> b -> c foo a = \b -> ... }}} It would be nice to be able to define the function syntactically in the way that's the most clear (e.g. in pointfree style, etc.) and specify at what point to inline something like this: {{{ foo :: a -> {-# INLINE #-} b -> c foo a b = ... -- or: foo = ... }}} ...which tells the compiler to inline after applying the arguments to the left of the pragma, and GHC would do whatever trivial (I assume?) eta- conversion was required. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8099> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 18

[GHC] #8589: Bad choice of loop breaker with INLINABLE/INLINE
by GHC 04 Aug '16

04 Aug '16

#8589: Bad choice of loop breaker with INLINABLE/INLINE ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: NickSmallbone | Status: new Type: bug | Milestone: Priority: normal | Version: 7.6.3 Component: Compiler | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Keywords: | Type of failure: Runtime performance bug Architecture: | Test Case: Unknown/Multiple | Blocking: Difficulty: Unknown | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: | ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Take the following program, which defines a pair of lists recursively: {{{ module Test(xs, ys) where pair :: ([Bool], [Bool]) pair = (False:xs, True:ys) where (xs, ys) = pair (xs, ys) = pair }}} GHC is clever enough to disentangle {{{xs}}} from {{{ys}}} and with {{{-ddump-simpl -O}}} I get: {{{ Rec { xs [Occ=LoopBreaker] :: [Bool] [GblId, Caf=NoCafRefs, Str=DmdType] xs = : False xs end Rec } Rec { ys [Occ=LoopBreaker] :: [Bool] [GblId, Caf=NoCafRefs, Str=DmdType] ys = : True ys end Rec } }}} However, if I mark {{{pair}}} as {{{INLINABLE}}} or {{{INLINE}}} (it doesn't matter which), I get much worse code where {{{xs}}} and {{{ys}}} go through {{{pair}}}: {{{ Rec { pair [InlPrag=INLINABLE[ALWAYS], Occ=LoopBreaker] :: ([Bool], [Bool]) [GblId, Str=DmdType m, Unf=Unf{Src=InlineStable, TopLvl=True, Arity=0, Value=True, ConLike=True, WorkFree=False, Expandable=True, Guidance=IF_ARGS [] 50 30 Tmpl= (: False (case pair of _ { (xs1_Xf6 [Occ=Once], _) -> xs1_Xf6 }), : True (case pair of _ { (_, ys1_Xf6 [Occ=Once]) -> ys1_Xf6 }))}] pair = (a1_rgo, a_rgn) ys_ys :: [Bool] [GblId, Str=DmdType, Unf=Unf{Src=<vanilla>, TopLvl=True, Arity=0, Value=False, ConLike=False, WorkFree=True, Expandable=True, Guidance=IF_ARGS [] 10 0}] ys_ys = case pair of _ { (xs1_XeW, ys1_Xf7) -> ys1_Xf7 } a_rgn :: [Bool] [GblId, Str=DmdType] a_rgn = : True ys_ys xs_xs :: [Bool] [GblId, Str=DmdType, Unf=Unf{Src=<vanilla>, TopLvl=True, Arity=0, Value=False, ConLike=False, WorkFree=True, Expandable=True, Guidance=IF_ARGS [] 10 0}] xs_xs = case pair of _ { (xs1_XeW, ys1_XeS) -> xs1_XeW } a1_rgo :: [Bool] [GblId, Str=DmdType] a1_rgo = : False xs_xs end Rec } ys :: [Bool] [GblId, Str=DmdType, Unf=Unf{Src=<vanilla>, TopLvl=True, Arity=0, Value=False, ConLike=False, WorkFree=True, Expandable=True, Guidance=ALWAYS_IF(unsat_ok=True,boring_ok=True)}] ys = ys_ys xs :: [Bool] [GblId, Str=DmdType, Unf=Unf{Src=<vanilla>, TopLvl=True, Arity=0, Value=False, ConLike=False, WorkFree=True, Expandable=True, Guidance=ALWAYS_IF(unsat_ok=True,boring_ok=True)}] xs = xs_xs }}} It seems that GHC chooses {{{pair}}} as the loop breaker, which stops the simplifier in its tracks. It might seem a bit silly to mark {{{pair}}} as {{{INLINE}}}, since it's not mutually recursive. The function I really had was polymorphic with a typeclass constraint, and I wrote {{{INLINABLE}}} to get it specialised at its call site. (Also, {{{pair}}} is mutually recursive in the Core, so you would expect GHC to avoid using it as a loop breaker if I mark it {{{INLINE}}}.) -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8589> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 8

[GHC] #8662: GHC does not inline cheap inner loop when used in two places
by GHC 04 Aug '16

04 Aug '16

#8662: GHC does not inline cheap inner loop when used in two places ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Reporter: nh2 | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.6.3 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: Runtime performance bug Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: Difficulty: Unknown | Blocking: Blocked By: | Related Tickets: | ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- When I made a Criterion benchmark of Neil Michell's "Tight Inner Loop" blog post (http://neilmitchell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/optimising-haskell- for-tight-inner-loop.html), I noticed that GHC 7.6.3 will not inline the performance-critical function when it's called from two different places (inside the same module). {{{ break0_2pleaseinline :: (Char -> Bool) -> ByteString0 -> (ByteString, ByteString0) break0_2pleaseinline f (BS0 bs) = (BS.unsafeTake i bs, BS0 $ BS.unsafeDrop i bs) where i = Internal.inlinePerformIO $ BS.unsafeUseAsCString bs $ \ptr -> do let start = castPtr ptr :: Ptr Word8 let end = go start return $! Ptr end `minusPtr` start go s@(Ptr a) | c == '\0' || f c = a | otherwise = go $ inc s where c = chr s versionInl1 :: ByteString0 -> (ByteString, ByteString0) versionInl1 str = break0_2pleaseinline test str where test x = x <= '$' && (x == ' ' || x == '\r' || x == '\n' || x == '$') versionInl2 :: ByteString0 -> (ByteString, ByteString0) versionInl2 str = break0_2pleaseinline test str where test x = x <= '$' && (x == ' ' || x == '\r' || x == '\n' || x == '$') }}} Full code here: https://github.com/nh2/inner-loop- benchmarks/blob/6715d1e9946d6b5e6d9bb53203982ed3d2ed32ff/Bench.hs#L166. {{{break0_2pleaseinline}}} does not get inlined, which makes {{{versionInl1}}} and {{{versionInl2}}} over 4 times slower than when inlined. The inlining doens't happen, not even with {{{-O2}}} and {{{-O3}}}, only an {{{INLINE}}} pragma will move GHC to do it. If I was a compiler, I would so inline that function! I am surprised that GHC doesn't decide to do so. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8662> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 4

[GHC] #8814: 7.8 optimizes attoparsec improperly
by GHC 04 Aug '16

04 Aug '16

#8814: 7.8 optimizes attoparsec improperly ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Reporter: joelteon | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.1-rc1 Keywords: | Operating System: MacOS X Architecture: x86_64 | Type of failure: Runtime performance bug (amd64) | Test Case: Difficulty: Unknown | Blocking: Blocked By: | Related Tickets: | ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- {{{ #!haskell {-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-} import Control.Applicative import qualified Data.Attoparsec.Text as A import Data.Text (Text) import qualified Data.Text as T testParser :: Text -> Either String Int testParser f = fmap length . A.parseOnly (many (A.char 'b' <|> A.anyChar)) $ f main :: IO () main = print . testParser $ T.replicate 50000 "a" }}} On GHC 7.6.3 with `-O2`: {{{ real 0m0.062s user 0m0.022s sys 0m0.007s }}} On GHC 7.8 tip with `-O2`: {{{ real 0m12.700s user 0m12.504s sys 0m0.165s }}} On GHC 7.6.3 with `-O0`: {{{ real 0m0.077s user 0m0.025s sys 0m0.007s }}} On GHC 7.8 tip with `-O0`: {{{ real 0m0.055s user 0m0.026s sys 0m0.007s }}} This seems to be related to the use of `<|>`; if I change the program so that the second branch (`A.anyChar`) is never taken, 7.8 behavior is roughly the same as 7.6 under any optimization level. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8814> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 20