September 2015 - ghc-tickets

[GHC] #10712: Regression: make TEST=exceptionsrun001 WAY=optasm is failing
by GHC 07 Mar '17

07 Mar '17

#10712: Regression: make TEST=exceptionsrun001 WAY=optasm is failing -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: thomie | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: high | Milestone: 7.12.1 Component: Compiler | Version: 7.11 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: base/tests/exceptionsrun001 | Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- The following program, extracted from the test exceptionsrun001, should exit with exitcode 100. Instead, when compiled with `-O1`, it never gets past the ioTest and somehow manages to exit with exitcode 0. {{{ {-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-} module Main where import Control.Exception import System.IO.Error import System.Exit main = do ioTest exitWith (ExitFailure 100) ioTest :: IO () ioTest = (catch (ioError (userError "wibble")) (\(e::IOException) -> return ()) }}} I think this will require a git bisect: * last known good commit: 34bb4605d4ec5b131df57ca4c91d6840b7539194 * first known bad commit: f83aab95f59ae9b29f22fc7924e050512229cb9c. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10712> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 22

[GHC] #10830: maximumBy has a space leak
by GHC 04 Mar '17

04 Mar '17

#10830: maximumBy has a space leak -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: NeilMitchell | Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: | Version: 7.10.2 libraries/base | Keywords: | Operating System: Windows Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Given the program: {{{#!hs import Data.List main = print $ maximumBy compare [1..10000] }}} Compiling with {{{-O2}}}, on GHC 7.8.3 this runs in constant stack space (works fine with {{{+RTS -K1K}}}). With GHC 7.10.2 I get: {{{ $ ghc --make Test.hs -O2 -rtsopts [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( Test.hs, Test.o ) Linking Test.exe ... $ Test +RTS -K100K Stack space overflow: current size 33680 bytes. Use `+RTS -Ksize -RTS' to increase it. }}} Not sure why it's failing at 33K instead of 100K, but it's certainly taking more than 1K as GHC 7.8.3 did. See #3416 for previous discussion of this issue. My guess is that in older versions of GHC the strictness analysis managed to kick in and optimise things. With the burnt bridges that no longer works. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10830> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 33

[GHC] #9729: GHCi accepts invalid programs when recompiling
by GHC 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

#9729: GHCi accepts invalid programs when recompiling -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: crockeea | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: GHCi | Version: 7.8.3 Keywords: | Operating System: Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Unknown/Multiple Difficulty: Unknown | Type of failure: GHC Blocked By: | accepts invalid program Related Tickets: | Test Case: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Here's what's happening: Module A imports module B. Module B contains a function with constraints that are '''required''' to compile module B. If I load module A in GHCi, I can remove some (required) constraints on the function in module B and GHCi will successfully reload module B. My example uses the [https://hackage.haskell.org/package/syntactic syntactic] library. I attempted to recreate the situation I just described without syntactic, but I was unsuccessful. Module A.hs: {{{ #!haskell module A where import B import Data.Syntactic.Sugar.BindingT () main = print "hello" }}} Module B.hs: {{{ #!haskell {-# LANGUAGE GADTs, TypeOperators, FlexibleContexts #-} module B where import Data.Syntactic data Let x where Let :: Let (a :-> (a -> b) :-> Full b) share :: (Let :<: sup, sup ~ Domain b, sup ~ Domain a, Internal (a -> b) ~ (Internal a -> Internal b), -- remove me Syntactic a, Syntactic b, Syntactic (a -> b), SyntacticN (a -> (a -> b) -> b) (ASTF sup (Internal a) -> ASTF sup (Internal (a -> b)) -> ASTF sup (Internal b))) => a -> (a -> b) -> b share = sugarSym Let }}} Here's a terminal transcript: {{{ $ ghci A [1 of 2] Compiling B ( testsuite/B.hs, interpreted ) [2 of 2] Compiling A ( testsuite/A.hs, interpreted ) Ok, modules loaded: A, B. > (Now remove the constraint from B and save. This *should* break module B) > :r [1 of 2] Compiling B ( testsuite/B.hs, interpreted ) Ok, modules loaded: A, B. > :q $ ghci B [1 of 2] Compiling B ( testsuite/B.hs, interpreted ) testsuite/B.hs:21:9: Could not deduce (Internal (a -> b) ~ (Internal a -> Internal b)) }}} If I had to guess what's going on, it's that GHCi is remembering the instance that A imports from BindingT: {{{ instance (...) => Syntactic (a -> b) where type Internal (a -> b) = Internal a -> Internal b }}} This instance implies the constraint that module B needs, however it should never be visible to module B. GHCi seems to be ignoring that and using the instance to recompile module B. When compiling from scratch, module B is compiled first, so of course the instance (and therefore the constraint) are not visible. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9729> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 7

[GHC] #10749: Boot file instances should imply superclasses
by GHC 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

#10749: Boot file instances should imply superclasses -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: ezyang | Owner: ezyang Type: bug | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.11 Keywords: backpack | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Currently, if I write the following program: {{{ -- A.hs-boot module A where data T instance Ord T -- B.hs module B where import {-# SOURCE #-} A f :: T -> T -> Bool f x y = x == y }}} I get: {{{ B.hs:4:11: No instance for (Eq T) arising from a use of `==' Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Eq T) In the expression: x == y In an equation for `f': f x y = x == y }}} This is a bit confusing, because Ord instances are supposed to imply Eq instances. GHC should either: 1. Reject A.hs-boot (claiming that it could not find evidence that T had an Eq instance), or 2. Accept B.hs, since the instance requirement for Ord should imply Eq. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10749> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 3

[GHC] #9131: Experiment with a dedicated solver for Coercible
by GHC 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

#9131: Experiment with a dedicated solver for Coercible ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: nomeata | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: low | 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: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- This is something that I might want to do some time; it should not distract us from working and improving the current design and implementation. But I think it should be explored. Currently `Coercible` appears as a type class, we have instances to explain it, and use the existing solver to solve them. The last part sometimes causes problems: * the order the instances are tried matters, there might be dead ends (#9117) * recursive newtypes are not handled as good as they could be. It would be worth exploring if a dedicated solver for `Coercible` constraints could solve these issues. It could replace the existing `getCoercibleInst`. Given a constraint `Coercible s t` it would solve it completely, do nothing or (and this is not planned out yet) return some sufficient and in some sense primitive constraint that should appear in inferred type signatures etc. Ideally we could still explain `Coercible` in terms of the instances written in the ICFP’14 paper, and simply state „GHC will find a solution using these instances, if there are any.“ instead of „The usual solver is employed, it might run into dead ends (or not, hard to tell).“ When tackling this task, I should do something that I keep postponing (because I don’t like to admit my lack of knowlege about that) but I think is really important: What are the theoretical properties of solving `Coercible` constraints? Is it even decidable? Semi decidable? Are there existing standard algorithms? How does this relate to SMT solving? And why don’t I know these things... -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9131> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 9

[GHC] #9117: Coercible constraint solver misses one
by GHC 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

#9117: Coercible constraint solver misses one ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: goldfire | Owner: Type: bug | 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: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- When I say {{{ import Data.Type.Coercion import Data.Coerce eta :: Coercible f g => Coercion (f a) (g a) eta = Coercion }}} I get {{{ Could not coerce from ‘f a’ to ‘g a’ because ‘f a’ and ‘g a’ are different types. arising from a use of ‘Coercion’ from the context (Coercible f g) bound by the type signature for eta :: Coercible f g => Coercion (f a) (g a) at /Users/rae/temp/Roles.hs:6:8-44 In the expression: Coercion In an equation for ‘eta’: eta = Coercion }}} But, this coercion is easily expressible in Core. If `(co :: f ~R# g)` then `(co <a> :: f a ~R# g a)`, where `<a>` is the notation for a reflexivity coercion for the type `a`. The constraint solver should be able to do this. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9117> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 35

[GHC] #8779: Exhaustiveness checks for pattern synonyms
by GHC 28 Feb '17

28 Feb '17

#8779: Exhaustiveness checks for pattern synonyms -------------------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: nomeata | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler (Type checker) | Version: 7.6.3 Keywords: | Operating System: Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Unknown/Multiple Difficulty: Unknown | Type of failure: Blocked By: | None/Unknown Related Tickets: | Test Case: | Blocking: -------------------------------------------+------------------------------- Pattern synonyms are great, as they decouple interface from implementation. Especially if #8581 is also implemented, it should be possible to change a type completely while retaining the existing interface. Exciting! Another missing piece is exhaustiveness checks. Given this pattern {{{ initLast [] = Nothing initLast xs = Just (init xs, last xs) pattern xs ::: x <- (initLast -> Just (xs,x)) }}} we want the compiler to tell the programmer that {{{ f [] = ... f (xs ::: x) = ... }}} is complete, while {{{ g (xs ::: x) = ... }}} is not. With view pattern directly, this is impossible. But the programmer did not write view patterns! So here is what I think might work well, inspired by the new `MINIMAL` pragma: We add a new pragma `COMPLETE_PATTERNS` (any ideas for a shorter name). The syntax is essentially the same as for `MINIMAL`, i.e. a boolean formula, with constructors and pattern synonyms as atoms. In this case. {{{ {-# COMPLETE_PATTERNS [] && (:::) #-} }}} Multiple pragmas are obviously combined with `||`, and there is an implicit `{-# COMPLETE_PATTERNS [] && (:) #-}` listing all real data constructors. When checking for exhaustiveness, this would be done before unfolding view patterns, and for `g` above we get a warning that `[]` is not matched. Again, the implementation is very much analogous to `MINIMAL`. Clearly, a library author can mess up and give wrong `COMPLETE_PATTERNS` pragmas. I think that is ok (like with `MINIMAL`), and generally an improvement. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8779> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 58

[GHC] #10246: Literal Pattern match loses order
by GHC 26 Feb '17

26 Feb '17

#10246: Literal Pattern match loses order -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: nomeata | 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: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- I found this long-standing bug while investigating #10245: Consider this code: {{{ f1 :: Int -> String f1 n = case n of 0 -> "bar" 0x10000000000000000 -> "foo" _ -> "c" {-# NOINLINE f1 #-} g1 :: Int -> String g1 n = if n == 0 then "bar" else if n == 0x10000000000000000 then "foo" else "c" {-# NOINLINE g1 #-} f2 :: Int -> String f2 n = case n of 0x10000000000000000 -> "foo" 0 -> "bar" _ -> "c" {-# NOINLINE f2 #-} g2 :: Int -> String g2 n = if n == 0x10000000000000000 then "foo" else if n == 0 then "bar" else "c" {-# NOINLINE g2 #-} main = do let i = read "0" :: Int print (f1 i) print (g1 i) print (f2 i) print (g2 i) }}} According to the report, `f1` should behave like `g1` and `f2` should behave like `g2`. But that is not the case: I get {{{ "foo" "bar" "foo" "foo" }}} The reason is that the branches are sorted, to create fancy code for it, but this does not take into account that `0x10000000000000000 = 0`, at least for `Int`. This bug is present also in 7.8.4, and not (directly) related to my CmmSwitch code: It can also be observed with interpreted code, so the fix must happen earlier. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10246> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 7

[GHC] #9533: Signed/unsigned integer difference between compiled and interpreted code
by GHC 26 Feb '17

26 Feb '17

#9533: Signed/unsigned integer difference between compiled and interpreted code -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: MichaelBurge | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.3 Keywords: | Operating System: Windows Architecture: x86_64 (amd64) | Type of failure: Incorrect Difficulty: Unknown | result at runtime Blocked By: | Test Case: Related Tickets: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- The following code outputs "A". {{{#!hs import Data.Word x :: Word x = 10 y :: Word y = 11 test = case x - y of -1 -> "A" _ -> "B" main = putStrLn $ show test }}} However, adding a new case that isn't matched causes the output to change: {{{#!hs import Data.Word x :: Word x = 10 y :: Word y = 11 test = case x - y of 5 -> "C" -1 -> "A" _ -> "B" main = putStrLn $ show test }}} With the extra '5 -> "C"' line in the case, the output is "B". It gets weirder - interpreted code actually continues to match the -1 case. With the second example in a file 'T.hs', here is a GHCi session: {{{ Prelude Main> :l *T.hs [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( T.hs, interpreted ) Ok, modules loaded: Main. *Main> main "A" *Main> :l T.hs Ok, modules loaded: Main. Prelude Main> main "B" Prelude Main> }}} These examples suggest to me at least 3 improvements: * Issue a warning when a negative number is used in a case statement in unsigned context * Interpreted code should give the same result as compiled code * Adding a case that isn't matched shouldn't change which other patterns get matched -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9533> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 7

[GHC] #10343: Make Typeable track kind information better
by GHC 22 Feb '17

22 Feb '17

#10343: Make Typeable track kind information better -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: oerjan | Owner: Type: feature | Status: new request | Milestone: Priority: normal | Version: 7.10.1 Component: Compiler | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Keywords: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Architecture: | Blocked By: Unknown/Multiple | Related Tickets: 9858 Test Case: typeOf :: | Typeable (a::k) => Proxy a -> | TypeRep | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- With all the apparent exploitable bugs now fixed, #9858 seems to be settling down. Simon P.J. asked me to make a new ticket for some quibbles I still have with limitations of the new design. These started with some examples that I discussed there pre-implementation with Richard Eisenberg, and which he concluded could be supported by a "sufficently smart solver". In the new (current) design, a `TypeRep` ''does'' contain kind information, which as I understand it is a list of `KindRep`s for the explicit kind parameters applied to the type constructor after type inference. This is sufficient to prevent confusing the same type constructor used at different kinds, and also easily supports type application ''provided'' the `TypeRep`s of the parts are known. For this, the internal `Typeable` constraint solver only ever needs to combine `TypeRep`s, never decompose them. Since no one else complained in #9858, I assume this is enough for what people are currently using `Typeable` for. However: I think the current `TypeRep` representation for `Typeable (a :: k)` doesn't contain enough information to generally extract the `KindRep` for `k` itself, much less to decompose it, even if the internal `Typeable` solver were to try. This prevents some polykinded code that is intuitively sound, and which "worked" in the old system, although if only because it didn't try to track kinds at all. For example, the following expression, with `PolyKinds` enabled: {{{#!hs typeOf :: Typeable a => Proxy a -> TypeRep }}} In the old system, this worked simply by combining the `TypeRep` for `Proxy` with the `TypeRep` for `a`. But in the new system, it fails, because the `TypeRep` for `Proxy` needs to know the kind of `a`, which is neither statically known nor available from the `TypeRep` of `a`. You would need to have compile-time information about the type constructor of `a` to even know how to build the `KindRep` from the kind arguments. This problem with constructing `TypeRep`s would arise whenever a polykinded type constructor is applied to a type whose kind is not a known monomorphic one. The second similar one I can think of is {{{#!hs typeRep :: Typeable a => Proxy (Typeable a) -> TypeRep }}} In an ideal system, we can also find use cases that require not just extracting the `KindRep` for a type, but also decomposing it. Here is my very hypothetical kitchen sink example from [comment:46:ticket:9858] (this example was made up as a test case before I knew what the new solver would support): {{{#!hs {-# LANGUAGE PolyKinds #-} {-# LANGUAGE DataKinds #-} {-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures #-} {-# LANGUAGE AutoDeriveTypeable #-} import Data.Typeable newtype C a b = C () step :: Proxy (a :: [k] -> *) -> Proxy (C a :: [k -> *] -> *) step Proxy = Proxy nest :: Typeable (a :: [k] -> *) => Int -> Proxy a -> TypeRep nest 0 x = typeRep x nest n x = nest (n-1) (step x) main = print $ nest 10 (Proxy :: Proxy (C () :: [()] -> *)) }}} Here, to make this compile, the solver would need to derive `Typeable (C a :: [k -> *] -> *]` from `Typeable (a :: [k] -> *)`, which at runtime requires first extracting the `KindRep` of `k` from the `TypeRep` of `a`, and then building the `TypeRep` for the correctly kinded `C`. At least the former part seems essentially impossible with the current `TypeRep` representation, even with a more clever solver. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10343> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 38