February 2016 - ghc-tickets

[GHC] #9692: Template Haskell reification for Data Families is buggy?
by GHC 08 Nov '18

08 Nov '18

#9692: Template Haskell reification for Data Families is buggy? -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: hpacheco | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.3 Keywords: TemplateHaskell | Operating System: MacOS X Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Type of failure: Difficulty: Unknown | None/Unknown Blocked By: | Test Case: Related Tickets: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- I have found an example where I think that the TH reification for data/newtype families is incorrect, in that if forgets non-instantiated type variables in instance declarations. For the attached example, it will infer the Info: {{{#!hs FamilyI (FamilyD DataFam TyFamReifyDefs.F [PlainTV a_1627399879,PlainTV b_1627399880] (Just StarT)) [DataInstD [] TyFamReifyDefs.F [ConT GHC.Types.Int] [NormalC TyFamReifyDefs.FInt [(NotStrict,VarT x_1627399881)]] []] }}} Note how the variable x is not declared in the body of the DataInstD. Since it does not need to have the same name as the family-declared variable, substituing is non-trivial this way... -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9692> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 8

[GHC] #11335: Add instance (Ix a, Read a, Read b) => Read (UArray a b)
by GHC 08 Nov '18

08 Nov '18

#11335: Add instance (Ix a, Read a, Read b) => Read (UArray a b) -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: rwbarton | Owner: Type: feature | Status: new request | Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: libraries | Version: 7.8.3 (other) | Keywords: array | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- `Array` has `Eq`, `Ord`, `Show` and `Read` instances but `UArray` only has `Eq`, `Ord` and `Show`. Add the missing `Read` instance. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11335> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 3

[GHC] #11008: GND with Type Families
by GHC 07 Nov '18

07 Nov '18

#11008: GND with Type Families -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: crockeea | 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: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- In the following code: {{{ {-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, FlexibleContexts, UndecidableInstances #-} class C r type family F r newtype Foo r = Foo r instance (C (F r), Eq r) => Eq (Foo r) newtype Bar r = Bar (Foo r) deriving (Eq) }}} GHC produces the error {{{ No instance for (C (F r)) arising from the 'deriving' clause of a data type declaration Possible fix: use a standalone 'deriving instance' declaration, so you can specify the instance context yourself When deriving the instance for (Eq (Bar r)) }}} If I enable `StandaloneDeriving`, I am able to derive the instance: `deriving instance (Eq (Foo r)) => Eq (Bar r)` [https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_guide/deriving.ht… #newtype-deriving The docs] indicate that this is exactly the instance that should be generated by GND for `newtype T v1..vn = MkT (t vk+1..vn) deriving (C t1..tj)`, where my code uses the following parameters: {{{ T = Bar v1 = r n = 1 MkT = Bar t = Foo r k= 1 C = Eq j = 0 }}} and all of the conditions enumerated in the docs seem to be met. Furthermore, `Bar` seems to fit squarely into the format of `data T1` in section 7.5.1 of the same documentation, which indicates it should not need `StandaloneDeriving`. It seems that the type family constraint on the `Eq` instance for `Foo` is causing the problem, but it's not clear why I'm forced to write a standalone instance that is identical to the one that should be generated by GND. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11008> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 12

[GHC] #9545: Evaluate Takano Akio's foldrW/buildW fusion framework as a possible replacement for foldr/build
by GHC 29 Oct '18

29 Oct '18

#9545: Evaluate Takano Akio's foldrW/buildW fusion framework as a possible replacement for foldr/build -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: dfeuer | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: libraries/base | Version: 7.9 Keywords: | Operating System: Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Unknown/Multiple Difficulty: Project (more | Type of failure: than a week) | None/Unknown Blocked By: | Test Case: Related Tickets: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Takano Akio's [https://github.com/takano-akio/ww-fusion worker-wrapper fusion] modifies `foldr/build` fairly conservatively to allow safe fusion of `foldl` and friends without relying on arity analysis. This advantage is important for two reasons that I know of: 1. As discussed in Joachim Breitner's original paper, the current arity analysis is unable to infer arity correctly when facing certain forms of recursion. 2. The current arity analysis, and probably ''any'' practical arity analysis, depends on inlining to a degree that can sometimes be unhealthy. I would love to make functions like `hPutStr` fuse, but I suspect doing so safely at present would likely cause a code explosion—the function being folded is too large to want to inline to make it available for arity analysis following fusion. I don't understand it completely yet, but it looks like `foldrW/buildW` can eliminate a lot of this uncertainty. Furthermore, it appears that functions currently written using `foldr` in a "right-handed" way can remain unchanged, using an implementation of `foldr` in terms of `foldrW`. Only "left-handed" folds will need to be rewritten to take advantage of this framework, along with all the `build`s. That said, `foldrW/buildW` probably has its weaknesses too. The basic fusion rule looks like this. {{{#!hs {-# RULES "foldrW/buildW" forall f z (i :: Wrap f b) (g :: forall c g . (Wrap g c) -> (a -> c -> c) -> c -> c) . foldrW i f z (buildW g) = g i f z #-} }}} If `g` and `i` are not inlined sufficiently to merge with each other, I imagine this could produce worse results than `foldr/build` when the latter works properly. The only way to really get a feel for performance would be to carefully modify everything to work as well as it can with this framework and see how the results compare. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9545> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 9

[GHC] #9374: Investigate Static Argument Transformation
by GHC 29 Oct '18

29 Oct '18

#9374: Investigate Static Argument Transformation -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: jstolarek | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: lowest | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.9 Keywords: | Operating System: Architecture: Unknown/Multiple | Unknown/Multiple Difficulty: Unknown | Type of failure: Blocked By: | None/Unknown Related Tickets: | Test Case: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- At the moment the Static Argument Transformation (SAT) optimisation is not run unless explicitly enabled with `-fstatic-argument-transformation`. The comment in DynFlags says: {{{ Max writes: I think it's probably best not to enable SAT with -O2 for the 6.10 release. The version of SAT in HEAD at the moment doesn't incorporate several improvements to the heuristics, and I'm concerned that without those changes SAT will interfere with some attempts to write "high performance Haskell", as we saw in some posts on Haskell-Cafe earlier this year. In particular, the version in HEAD lacks the tail call criterion, so many things that look like reasonable loops will be turned into functions with extra (unneccesary) thunk creation. }}} 6.10 was a long time ago. Has anything changed since then? Does it make sense to enable that optimisation now? What are the mentioned heuristics and were they finally implemented? Does anyone know what Haskell-cafe posts does Max refer to? -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9374> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 30

[GHC] #9163: Ptr should have a phantom role
by GHC 28 Oct '18

28 Oct '18

#9163: Ptr should have a phantom role ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: simonpj | 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: | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- In `GHC.Ptr` we see {{{ type role Ptr representational data Ptr a = Ptr Addr# deriving (Eq, Ord) }}} with no comments. Why is `Ptr` representational? In the same module we have `castPtr`: {{{ castPtr :: Ptr a -> Ptr b castPtr (Ptr addr) = Ptr addr }}} which unpacks and repacks a `Ptr`. If `Ptr` was phantom, we could use `coerce`. And that in turn would actually make a lot of code more efficient – there are lots of calls to `castPtr`. Specifically, in `nofib`, I tried implementing `castPtr` with `unsafeCoerce`. Then I found: * 12% less allocation in `reverse-complem` * 7.3% less allocation in `fasta`. * Binary sizes fell 0.1%. Both these benchmarks are ones that do a ''lot'' of I/O, and it turns out that `GHC.IO.Handle.Text.$wa1` has a `castPtr` that (all by itself) accounts for 12% of `reverse-complem`'s total allocation! So making `castPtr` free is good. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9163> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 41

[GHC] #11238: Redesign the dynamic linking on ELF systems
by GHC 27 Oct '18

27 Oct '18

#11238: Redesign the dynamic linking on ELF systems -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: trommler | Owner: trommler Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 8.2.1 Component: Runtime | Version: 7.10.3 System (Linker) | Keywords: | Operating System: Linux Architecture: | Type of failure: Other Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- This ticket is to follow up on my comment on #11042. Let's give dynamic linking on ELF systems a second chance. I propose the following steps: 1. Collect required features 1. Write up and discuss and agree on a specification 1. Create regression tests for all features 1. Design and implement a new dynamic linker for GHCi 1. (optional) Make it work on Mac OS X too -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11238> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 10

[GHC] #10353: Haddock for Data.List should list instances
by GHC 26 Oct '18

26 Oct '18

#10353: Haddock for Data.List should list instances -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: goldfire | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: | Version: 7.10.1 Documentation | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Keywords: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Architecture: | Blocked By: Unknown/Multiple | Related Tickets: Test Case: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- I'd like to know the set of classes for which there are instances for `[]`. So, I naturally looked in the documentation for `Data.List`. However, because `Data.List` doesn't export `[]`, this list isn't there. Can this be fixed? (It's an honest question -- because of `[]`'s special syntax, I could see this fix being non-trivial.) -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10353> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 1

[GHC] #10453: \case should trigger auto-multiline mode in ghci
by GHC 24 Oct '18

24 Oct '18

#10453: \case should trigger auto-multiline mode in ghci -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: dmwit | 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: Test Case: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- In ghci, most block heralds trigger the multiline mode when :set +m is on. However, \case does not (and should). Compare: {{{ Prelude> ($True) (\case Prelude| x -> x Prelude| ) True Prelude> ($True) $ \case <interactive>:11:11: Empty list of alternatives in case expression Use EmptyCase to allow this }}} -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10453> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 5

[GHC] #11307: Regresssion: parsing type operators
by GHC 17 Oct '18

17 Oct '18

#11307: Regresssion: parsing type operators -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: alanz | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 8.0.1 Component: Compiler | Version: 7.11 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 7.10.3 will parse (but not type-check) the following {{{#!hs {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-} type family (r1 :++: r2); infixr 5 :++: type instance r :++: Nil = r type instance r1 :++: r2 :> a = (r1 :++: r2) :> a }}} Current master (c7830bdb14e0a85a78617314156d101155fdf7aa) fails with {{{#!hs /tmp/Foo.hs:5:15: error: Malformed head of type or class declaration: r1 :++: r2 :> a }}} @simonpj comment on ghc-devs mailing list > `| type instance r1 :++: r2 :> a = (r1 :++: r2) :> a` > > What do you expect this to mean? I suppose you could hope that GHC will > unravel the fixity of :++: and :>, to determine whether you are giving an > instance for :++: or for :>? > > That sounds reasonable, but it's not trivial. > > Currently the LHS of a 'type instance' decl is ultimately a TyFamEqn, and > it looks like this: > > {{{#!hs > data TyFamEqn name pats > = TyFamEqn > { tfe_tycon :: Located name > , tfe_pats :: pats > , tfe_rhs :: LHsType name } > }}} > > So we've already decided (in the parser) what the type-function name is. > But we can't do that in this case, because the parser doesn't understand > fixity. > > To deal with this we'd need to change to > > {{{#!hs > data TyFamEqn name pats > = TyFamEqn > { tfe_lhs :: LHSType name > , tfe_rhs :: LHsType name } > }}} > > so that the LHS was just a type. Now the renamer can re-jiggle its > fixities in the usual way, and only in the type checker will we need to > decide exactly which type it's an instance of. Easy! > > This might be a good change to make! It's a bit like in ClsInstDecl, you'll > see that the instance cid_poly_ty is just a LHsSigType, i.e. not decomposed > into which class it is. > -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11307> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 6