July 2015 - ghc-tickets

[GHC] #10564: GHC 7.10.2 RC cannot build HList-0.4.0.0
by GHC 13 Apr '17

13 Apr '17

#10564: GHC 7.10.2 RC cannot build HList-0.4.0.0 -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: snoyberg | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.10.2 Component: Compiler | Version: 7.10.2-rc1 Keywords: | Operating System: Linux Architecture: x86_64 | Type of failure: GHC rejects (amd64) | valid program Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Another Stackage find: http://lpaste.net/135061 {{{ Data/HList/Record.hs:575:10: Illegal instance declaration for ‘HasFieldM l (r xs) v’ The liberal coverage condition fails in class ‘HasFieldM’ for functional dependency: ‘l r -> v’ Reason: lhs types ‘l’, ‘r xs’ do not jointly determine rhs type ‘v’ In the instance declaration for ‘HasFieldM l (r xs) v’ Data/HList/Record.hs:587:10: Illegal instance declaration for ‘HasField l (Record (Tagged l1 v1 : r)) v’ The liberal coverage condition fails in class ‘HasField’ for functional dependency: ‘l r -> v’ Reason: lhs types ‘l’, ‘Record (Tagged l1 v1 : r)’ do not jointly determine rhs type ‘v’ In the instance declaration for ‘HasField l (Record (Tagged l1 v1 : r)) v’ Data/HList/Record.hs:646:10: Illegal instance declaration for ‘HDeleteAtLabel Record l v v'’ The liberal coverage condition fails in class ‘HDeleteAtLabel’ for functional dependency: ‘l v -> v'’ Reason: lhs types ‘l’, ‘v’ do not jointly determine rhs type ‘v'’ In the instance declaration for ‘HDeleteAtLabel Record l v v'’ Data/HList/Record.hs:723:10: Illegal instance declaration for ‘HUpdateAtLabel2 l v (Tagged l' e : xs) xs'’ The liberal coverage condition fails in class ‘HUpdateAtLabel2’ for functional dependency: ‘l r v -> r'’ Reason: lhs types ‘l’, ‘Tagged l' e : xs’, ‘v’ do not jointly determine rhs type ‘xs'’ In the instance declaration for ‘HUpdateAtLabel2 l v (Tagged l' e : xs) xs'’ }}} -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10564> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 5

[GHC] #10570: Too restrictive liberate coverage condition
by GHC 13 Apr '17

13 Apr '17

#10570: Too restrictive liberate coverage condition -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: danilo2 | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.10.1 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Blocked By: Test Case: | Related Tickets: Blocking: | Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Hello! Let's look at this small example: {{{haskell class ConsByIdx2 x a m cls | x -> m where consByIdx2 :: x -> a -> m cls instance ConsByIdx2 Int a Proxy cls where consByIdx2 _ _ = Proxy }}} It fails to compile with the following error: {{{haskell Illegal instance declaration for ‘ConsByIdx2 Int a Proxy cls’ The liberal coverage condition fails in class ‘ConsByIdx2’ for functional dependency: ‘x -> m’ Reason: lhs type ‘Int’ does not determine rhs type ‘Proxy’ In the instance declaration for ‘ConsByIdx2 Int a Proxy cls’ }}} But Int determines the Proxy in a nice way. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10570> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 7

[GHC] #8585: Loopification should omit stack check
by GHC 11 Apr '17

11 Apr '17

#8585: Loopification should omit stack check ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Reporter: jstolarek | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | 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: | ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- When we optimize a self-recursive tail call using loopification we don't need to perform a stack check in every loop. This is because a tail recursive function uses constant amount of stack. We should therefore place the loop header after the stack check, but before the heap check (because heap may grow in every call). parcs proposed a patch [https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8275#comment:34 here]. We just need to make sure why it works and add some documentation. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8585> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 5

[GHC] #8871: No-op assignment I64[BaseReg + 784] = I64[BaseReg + 784]; is generated into optimized Cmm
by GHC 11 Apr '17

11 Apr '17

#8871: No-op assignment I64[BaseReg + 784] = I64[BaseReg + 784]; is generated into optimized Cmm ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: kgardas | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.9 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: Other Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Hello, on SPARC and I also guess on PPC it's possible to get following line in optimized Cmm code: {{{ I64[BaseReg + 784] = I64[BaseReg + 784]; }}} this line is then translated by NCG wasting 5 isns on SPARC at least. Don't know PPC. I'm not sure if this is possible to duplicate this on i386 due to fewer regs. Generally speaking you need to have 32bit target with more regs available. Interesting fact is that such line is not presented in non-optimized Cmm, but is presented in optimized one. Both optimized and non-optimized Cmms attached. Both get from compiling T7507 testcase by stage1 compiler on SPARC: {{{ /home/karel/vcs/ghc-src/ghc-sparc-reg_ncg/inplace/bin/ghc-stage1 -fforce- recomp -dcore-lint -dcmm-lint -dno-debug-output -no-user-package-db -rtsopts -fno-ghci-history -c T7507.hs -O -ddump-opt-cmm > T7507.opt-cmm- sparc-reg-ncg }}} Of course non-opt Cmm is got by -ddump-cmm instead of -ddump-opt-cmm. If you need more simplified testcase, then following code is usable too: {{{ module Main where import Data.Int main = print ( ( 2 ^ 6 ) :: Int64 ) }}} -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8871> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 7

[GHC] #8887: Double double assignment in optimized Cmm on SPARC
by GHC 11 Apr '17

11 Apr '17

#8887: Double double assignment in optimized Cmm on SPARC ----------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Reporter: kgardas | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.6.3 Keywords: | Operating System: Solaris Architecture: sparc | Type of failure: Runtime performance bug Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ----------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Hello, while reading ffi003 asm/opt-cmm for fixing this on SPARC I've noticed this code, this is optimized Cmm dump: {{{ 112 c1or: 113 _s1nw::F64 = F64[_s1nv::P32 + 3]; 114 _c1oj::I32 = sin; 115 _c1ok::F64 = _s1nw::F64; }}} this assignment to _s1nw::F64 looks useless as we may assign directly to _c1ok::F64, may we not? Both optimized and non-optimized Cmms attached. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8887> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 3

[GHC] #9159: cmm case, binary search instead of jump table
by GHC 11 Apr '17

11 Apr '17

#9159: cmm case, binary search instead of jump table ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Reporter: wojteknar | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.2 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: Runtime performance bug Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: Difficulty: Unknown | Blocking: Blocked By: | Related Tickets: | ------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- I'm not sure if this is qualifies as a bug or feature request. For case expressions where the scrutinee is Int#,or Int, or probably anything else numerical, GHC generates binary search, where a jump table could easily be used instead. The functions toChunk1# and toChunk2# yield suboptimal code. I found a satisfactory workaround, toChunk3# uses Enum and it is fine. For the attached code it probably does not matter much, but I have 65 cases in my real code, trying to implement a variant of ByteString, which will have the lowest possible storage overhead (just the info table pointer == one word) for lengths up to 64 bytes. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9159> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 8

[GHC] #8505: Arrows example error
by GHC 11 Apr '17

11 Apr '17

#8505: Arrows example error ------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Reporter: pdfrod | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: Component: Documentation | Version: 7.6.3 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: Documentation bug Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | ------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- In the section '''7.15.2. Conditional commands''' of the User's Guide (http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.6.3/html/users_guide/arrow- notation.html#idp49515792) it is stated that: {{{ proc (x,y) -> if f x y then g -< x+1 else h -< y+2 }}} is translated to: {{{ arr (\ (x,y) -> if f x y then Left x else Right y) >>> (arr (\x -> x+1) >>> f) ||| (arr (\y -> y+2) >>> g) }}} But this translation doesn't seem correct, because the arrows ''g'' and ''h'' are not being used as in the original code (''h'' doesn't appear at all in the translation). -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8505> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 4

[GHC] #10582: Tiny bug in lexer around lexing banana brackets
by GHC 11 Apr '17

11 Apr '17

#10582: Tiny bug in lexer around lexing banana brackets -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: goldfire | Owner: goldfire Type: bug | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: 7.10.3 Component: Compiler | Version: 7.10.1 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Blocked By: Test Case: | Related Tickets: Blocking: | Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- If I say {{{ {-# LANGUAGE Arrows #-} (|:) :: Int -> Int -> Int (|:) = (+) }}} I get {{{ /Users/rae/temp/Bug.hs:3:3: parse error on input ‘:’ }}} Trying this with other operators, like `(|+)`, works fine. The problem is that `notFollowedBySymbol` in Lexer.x is slightly wrong. I will fix in ongoing (mostly unrelated) work. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10582> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 4

[GHC] #10613: Mechanism for checking that we only enter single-entry thunks once
by GHC 10 Apr '17

10 Apr '17

#10613: Mechanism for checking that we only enter single-entry thunks once -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: bgamari | Owner: Type: feature | Status: new request | Milestone: Priority: normal | Version: 7.10.1 Component: Compiler | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Keywords: | Type of failure: Other Architecture: | Blocked By: Unknown/Multiple | Related Tickets: Test Case: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- During this week's GHC call it came up that it would be nice to have a linting mechanism for verifying that we only enter single-entry thunks once, as currently this invariant appears to be completely unchecked. Currently we do not record whether a thunk is intended to be single-entry when we emit its code. Moreover, I don't believe there is any room for this left in the info table to record this fact. There are two ways I can think of accomodating this, * stealing a bit from the thunk type field * add a flags field to `StgDebugInfo` such that the lint requires the `debug` way As far as implementing the check itself, I think it should be rather straightforward. When we enter a thunk we simply want to check whether it is single-entry. If it is then we replace it with a special type of `BLACKHOLE`-like thunk which crashes the program (or merely emits a warning) on entry. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10613> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 26

[GHC] #8816: Make SPARC registerised again.
by GHC 10 Apr '17

10 Apr '17

#8816: Make SPARC registerised again. -----------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: kgardas | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.6.3 Keywords: | Operating System: Solaris Architecture: sparc | Type of failure: None/Unknown Difficulty: Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | -----------------------------------+--------------------------------- It looks like recent GHC switched to unregisterised build on SPARC by default. This is kind of regression with the past GHCs where registerised builds were supported. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8816> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 7