January 2016 - ghc-tickets

[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] #11421: adding a PartialTypeSignatures to a binding affected by MonoLocalBinds leads compile-time failure
by GHC 04 Mar '17

04 Mar '17

#11421: adding a PartialTypeSignatures to a binding affected by MonoLocalBinds leads compile-time failure -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: aavogt | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.10.2 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- See attached file. I think both type signatures for xs should work. The ghci error unfortunately doesn't show up on :reload, but it shows up when trying to run an unrelated function (main here). -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11421> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 4

[GHC] #11179: Allow plugins to access "dead code"
by GHC 02 Mar '17

02 Mar '17

#11179: Allow plugins to access "dead code" -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: lerkok | Owner: Type: feature | Status: new request | Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.10.2 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- GHC removes dead-bindings quite early in the compilation process, which makes perfect sense from a pure compilation point of view. But with user- plugins, some of the dead-bindings can be interesting: They might be properties or other code that instructs the plugin to do a certain action, even if the binding isn't otherwise used anywhere else or exported. (Think of embedded properties.) Here's a discussion about the issue, where SimonPJ asked for a ticket to be filed: [http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc- devs/2015-December/010708.html] It appears the desugarer removes some of the dead-code. One option could be to stop the desugarer from doing that, and leaving it to the later optimizer passes so plugins can still see all the bindings (if they run early enough), or require the user to put in an "KeepAlive" pragma on bindings that she cares about. While keeping all-dead code in the desugarer would be the simplest thing to do, requiring the user to put in a pragma isn't a terrible solution either. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11179> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 19

[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 27 Feb '17

27 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 27 Feb '17

27 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