August 2014 - ghc-tickets

[GHC] #8279: bad alignment in code gen yields substantial perf issue
by GHC 29 Aug '18

29 Aug '18

#8279: bad alignment in code gen yields substantial perf issue ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Reporter: carter | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: highest | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.7 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: Runtime performance bug Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: Difficulty: Unknown | Blocking: Blocked By: | Related Tickets: | ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- independently, a number of folks have noticed that in various ways, GHC currently has quite a few different memory alignment related performance problems that can have >= 10% perf impact! Nicolas Frisby notes {{{ On my laptop, a program showed a consistent slowdown with -fdicts-strict I didn't find any obvious causes in the Core differences, so I turned to Intel's Performance Counter Monitor for measurements. After trying a few counters, I eventuall saw that there are about an order of magnitude more misaligned memory loads with -fdicts-strict than without, so I think that may be a significant part of the slowdown. I'm not sure if these are code or data reads. Can anyone suggest how to validate this hypothesis about misaligned reads? A subsequent commit has changed the behavior I was seeing, so I'm not interested in alternatives means to determine if -fdicts-strict is somehow at fault — I'm just asking specifically about data/code memory alignment in GHC and how to diagnose/experiment with it. }}} Reid Barton has independently noted {{{ so I did a nofib run with llvm libraries, ghc quickbuild so there's this really simple benchmark tak, https://github.com/ghc/nofib/blob/master/imaginary/tak/Main.hs it doesn't use any libraries at all in the main loop because the Ints all get unboxed but it's still 8% slower with quick-llvm (vs -fasm) weird right? [14:36:30] <carter> could you post the asm it generates for that function? [14:36:49] <rwbarton> well it's identical between the two versions <rwbarton> but they get linked at different offsets because some llvm sections are different sizes <rwbarton> if I add a 128-byte symbol to the .text section to move it to the same address... then the llvm libs version is just as fast <rwbarton> well, apparently 404000 is good and 403f70 is bad <rwbarton> I guess I can test other alignments easily enough <rwbarton> I imagine it wants to start on a cache line <rwbarton> but I don't know if it's just a coincidence that it worked with the ncg libraries <rwbarton> that it got a good location <rwbarton> for this program every 32-byte aligned address is 10+% faster than any merely 16-byte aligned address <rwbarton> and by alignment I mean alignment of the start of the Haskell code section <carter> haswell, sandybridge, ivy bridge, other? <rwbarton> dunno <rwbarton> I have similar results on Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7300 @ 2.00GHz <rwbarton> and on Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2374 HE <carter> ok <rwbarton> trying a patch now that aligns all *_entry symbols to 32 bytes }}} the key point in there is that on the tak benchmark, better alignment for the code made a 10% perf differnce on TAk on Core2 and opteron cpus! benjamin scarlet and Luite are speculating that this may be further induced by Tables next to code (TNC) accidentally creating bad alignment so theres cache line pollution / conflicts between the L1 Instruction- cache and data-caches. So one experiment would be to have the TNC transform pad after the table so the function entry point starts on the next cacheline? -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8279> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 26

[GHC] #8733: I/O manager causes unnecessary syscalls in send/recv loops
by GHC 26 Aug '18

26 Aug '18

#8733: I/O manager causes unnecessary syscalls in send/recv loops ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: tibbe | Owner: simonmar Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Runtime System | 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: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Network applications often call send followed by recv, to send a message and then read an answer. This causes syscall traces like this one: {{{ recvfrom(13, ) -- Haskell thread A sendto(13, ) -- Haskell thread A recvfrom(13, ) = -1 EAGAIN -- Haskell thread A epoll_ctl(3, ) -- Haskell thread A (a job for the IO manager) recvfrom(14, ) -- Haskell thread B sendto(14, ) -- Haskell thread B recvfrom(14, ) = -1 EAGAIN -- Haskell thread B epoll_ctl(3, ) -- Haskell thread B (a job for the IO manager) }}} The recvfrom call always fails, as the response from the partner we're communicating with won't be available right after we send the request. We ought to consider descheduling the thread as soon as sending is "done". The hard part is to figure out when that is. See http://www.yesodweb.com/blog/2014/02/new-warp for a real world example. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8733> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 21

[GHC] #9441: Merge identical top-level expressions following simplification when it is safe to do so
by GHC 18 Aug '18

18 Aug '18

#9441: Merge identical top-level expressions following simplification when it is safe to do so -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: dfeuer | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.2 Keywords: | Operating System: Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Unknown/Multiple Difficulty: Unknown | Type of failure: Blocked By: | None/Unknown Related Tickets: | Test Case: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- If I redefine {{{#!hs {-# INLINE reverse #-} reverse :: [a] -> [a] reverse xs = build $ \c n -> foldl (\a x -> x `c` a) n xs }}} and then write a couple test cases: {{{#!hs appRev xs ys = xs ++ reverse ys revAppRev xs ys = reverse xs ++ reverse ys }}} I end up getting some rather annoying code duplication (lots of stuff omitted from the following): {{{#!hs Rec { poly_go_r2v3 poly_go_r2v3 = \ @ a_a2nF ds_a2zc eta_Xl -> case ds_a2zc of _ { [] -> eta_Xl; : y_a2zh ys_a2zi -> poly_go_r2v3 ys_a2zi (: y_a2zh eta_Xl) } end Rec } reverse reverse = \ @ a_a2nF eta_B1 -> poly_go_r2v3 eta_B1 ([]) Rec { revAppRev2 revAppRev2 = \ @ a_a2y7 ds_a2zc eta_B1 -> case ds_a2zc of _ { [] -> eta_B1; : y_a2zh ys_a2zi -> revAppRev2 ys_a2zi (: y_a2zh eta_B1) } end Rec } Rec { revAppRev1 revAppRev1 = \ @ a_a2y7 ds_a2zc eta_B1 -> case ds_a2zc of _ { [] -> eta_B1; : y_a2zh ys_a2zi -> revAppRev1 ys_a2zi (: y_a2zh eta_B1) } end Rec } Rec { appRev1 appRev1 = \ @ a_a2xE ds_a2zc eta_B1 -> case ds_a2zc of _ { [] -> eta_B1; : y_a2zh ys_a2zi -> appRev1 ys_a2zi (: y_a2zh eta_B1) } end Rec } }}} The `reverse` function was inlined three times. In each case, there was no fusion, so `build` was inlined and the resulting copy of the `reverse` worker lifted to the top level. It would seem to me that once simplification is complete, it should be safe to merge all these copies into one. They are all `Rec {\ ... -> ...}` forms, so I don't think this has any potential to introduce undesirable sharing. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9441> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 14

[GHC] #8944: Warn instead of stopping on misplaced Haddock comments
by GHC 16 Aug '18

16 Aug '18

#8944: Warn instead of stopping on misplaced Haddock comments -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: Fuuzetsu | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler (Parser) | Version: 7.9 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: None/Unknown Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Given a simple module like {{{ module H where data F = F () -- ^ Comment for first type argument () }}} and trying to run Haddock on it, we'll get back {{{ /tmp/H.hs:4:12: parse error on input ‘(’ }}} The error message is rather sub-par in this scenario. It'd be great if we could instead print a warning saying that a Haddock comment is unexpected in that position and then continue on parsing. Best case scenario would be a more informative message such as “Documenting each constructor argument is not supported” but that might be quite a bit harder. Filing on GHC Trac as it's the parser that needs changing I believe. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8944> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 11

[GHC] #9214: UNPACK support for sum types
by GHC 11 Aug '18

11 Aug '18

#9214: UNPACK support for sum types ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: mojojojo | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.2 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: None/Unknown Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Currently the pragma only supports single-constructor types. So in the following example it will simply be ignored: {{{ data A = A1 Char | A2 {-# UNPACK #-} !B data B = B1 Int | B2 Bool }}} However the problem seems to be easily solvable by denormalizing the type {{{A}}} to something like the following during unpacking: {{{ data A = A1 Char | A2_1 Int | -- from B1 A2_2 Bool -- from B2 }}} -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9214> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 9

[GHC] #9334: Implement "instance chains"
by GHC 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

#9334: Implement "instance chains" -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: diatchki | Owner: diatchki Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler (Type | Version: 7.9 checker) | Differential Revisions: Keywords: | Architecture: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Difficulty: Unknown Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- It would be useful to implement a version of "instance chains" [1] in GHC, which would eliminate the need for OVERLAPPING_INSTANCES in most (all practcial?) programs. The idea is that programmers can explicitly group and order instances into an "instance chain". For example: {{{ instance (Monad m) => StateM (StateT s m) s where ... else (MonadTrans t, StateM m s) => StateM (t m) s where ... }}} When GHC searches for instances, the instances in a chain are considered together and in order, starting with the first one: 1. If the goal matches the current instance's head, then this instance is selected and the rest are ignored, as if they were not there; 2. If the goal does not match the current instance's head, AND it does not unify with the current instance's head, then we skip the instance and proceed to the next member of the chain; 3. If the goal does not match the current instance's head, but it does unify with it, then we cannot use this chain to solve the goal. In summary: earlier instances in a chain "hide" later instances, and later instances can be reached only if we are sure that none of the previous instance will match. [1] http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mpj/pubs/instancechains.pdf -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9334> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 19

[GHC] #8128: Standalone deriving fails for GADTs due to inaccessible code
by GHC 24 Jul '18

24 Jul '18

#8128: Standalone deriving fails for GADTs due to inaccessible code -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: adamgundry | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler (Type | Version: 7.7 checker) | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Keywords: | Type of failure: GHC rejects Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | valid program Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Consider the following: {{{ {-# LANGUAGE StandaloneDeriving, GADTs, FlexibleInstances #-} module StandaloneDerivingGADT where data T a where MkT1 :: T Int MkT2 :: (Bool -> Bool) -> T Bool deriving instance Show (T Int) }}} This gives the error: {{{ StandaloneDerivingGADT.hs:9:1: Couldn't match type ‛Int’ with ‛Bool’ Inaccessible code in a pattern with constructor MkT2 :: (Bool -> Bool) -> T Bool, in an equation for ‛showsPrec’ In the pattern: MkT2 b1 In an equation for ‛showsPrec’: showsPrec a (MkT2 b1) = showParen ((a >= 11)) ((.) (showString "MkT2 ") (showsPrec 11 b1)) When typechecking the code for ‛showsPrec’ in a standalone derived instance for ‛Show (T Int)’: To see the code I am typechecking, use -ddump-deriv In the instance declaration for ‛Show (T Int)’ }}} The derived instance declaration matches on all the constructors, even if they cannot possibly match. It should omit obviously inaccessible constructors so that this example is accepted. For reference, the derived code is: {{{ instance GHC.Show.Show (StandaloneDerivingGADT.T GHC.Types.Int) where GHC.Show.showsPrec _ StandaloneDerivingGADT.MkT1 = GHC.Show.showString "MkT1" GHC.Show.showsPrec a_aij (StandaloneDerivingGADT.MkT2 b1_aik) = GHC.Show.showParen ((a_aij GHC.Classes.>= 11)) ((GHC.Base..) (GHC.Show.showString "MkT2 ") (GHC.Show.showsPrec 11 b1_aik)) GHC.Show.showList = GHC.Show.showList__ (GHC.Show.showsPrec 0) }}} The same problem applies to other derivable classes (e.g. `Eq`). -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8128> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 15

[GHC] #8740: Code conditionally compiles
by GHC 24 Jul '18

24 Jul '18

#8740: Code conditionally compiles ----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: thomaseding | Status: new Type: bug | Milestone: Priority: normal | Version: 7.6.3 Component: Compiler | Operating System: MacOS X Keywords: | Type of failure: GHC rejects valid program Architecture: | Test Case: Unknown/Multiple | Blocking: Difficulty: Unknown | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: | ----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- {{{ {-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-} {-# LANGUAGE StandaloneDeriving #-} data Abstract data Reified data Player data Elect p a where ElectRefAsTypeOf :: Int -> Elect Abstract a -> Elect Abstract a ElectHandle :: a -> Elect Reified a Controller :: Elect Abstract Player Owner :: Elect Abstract Player You :: Elect Abstract Player deriving instance (Eq a) => Eq (Elect p a) deriving instance (Ord a) => Ord (Elect p a) }}} As is, the above code fails to compile. But if I move `ElectRefAsTypeOf` to be the last constructor for the GADT, the code does compile. If I remove one of the `Elect Abstract Player` constructors, the code still won't compile even if the `ElectRefAsTypeOf` is moved. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8740> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 8

[GHC] #8581: Add support for explicitly-bidirectional pattern synonyms
by GHC 12 Jul '18

12 Jul '18

#8581: Add support for explicitly-bidirectional pattern synonyms ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: cactus | Owner: cactus Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: None/Unknown Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: 5144 | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Some patterns cannot, by themselves, be turned over into an expression, so they have to be defined as unidirectional. Maybe the most trivial example would be {{{ pattern P -> _ }}} Sometimes, however, it would be desirable to give an explicit way of turning these pattern synonyms into expressions. The PatternSynonyms wiki page has this example: {{{ import qualified Data.Sequence as Seq pattern Empty -> (Seq.viewl -> Seq.EmptyL) pattern x :< xs -> (Seq.viewl -> x Seq.:< xs) pattern xs :> x -> (Seq.viewr -> xs Seq.:> x) }}} It would make a ton of sense to be able to use this cons/snoc notation as "constructors" for `Seq`s. The proposed syntax for this {{{ pattern x :< xs -> (Seq.viewl -> x Seq.:< xs) where x :< xs = x Seq.<| xs }}} -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8581> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 52

[GHC] #8822: Allow -- ^ Haddock syntax on record constructors
by GHC 10 Jul '18

10 Jul '18

#8822: Allow -- ^ Haddock syntax on record constructors -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: Fuuzetsu | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler (Parser) | Version: 7.9 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: None/Unknown Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Original ticket is on Haddock Trac [http://trac.haskell.org/haddock/ticket/144 here] which I'm opening here as it requires lexer/parser changes. The idea is that given something like {{{ -- | A tree with labeled internal nodes data Tree = Empty -- ^ Leaf | Branch -- ^ Internal node { label :: a -- ^ Node label , subtrees :: [Tree] -- ^ List of subtrees } }}} we'd like it to parse as the user would expect instead of failing. We're currently forced to do something like {{{ -- | A tree with labeled internal nodes data Tree = Empty -- ^ Leaf | -- | Internal node Branch { label :: a -- ^ Node label , subtrees :: [Tree] -- ^ List of subtrees } }}} which is quite ugly. I can't think of a reason why the first form wouldn't be allowed. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8822> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 8