June 2016 - ghc-tickets

[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] #11719: Cannot use higher-rank kinds with type families
by GHC 29 Oct '18

29 Oct '18

#11719: Cannot use higher-rank kinds with type families -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: ocharles | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 8.0.1-rc2 (Type checker) | 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: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- This ticket came out of a discussion with Richard in this mailing list post: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell- cafe/2016-March/123462.html Here's the code that should work, but doesn't: {{{ import Data.Kind data TyFun :: * -> * -> * type a ~> b = TyFun a b -> * type family (f :: a ~> b) @@ (x :: a) :: b data Null a = Nullable a | NotNullable a type family ((f :: b ~> c) ∘ (g :: a ~> b)) (x :: a) :: c where (f ∘ g) x = f @@ (g @@ x) type family BaseType (k :: forall a. a ~> Type) (x :: b) :: Type where -- this fails :( -- BaseType k x = (@@) k x }}} -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11719> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 22

[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 26 Oct '18

26 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] #12160: MonadFail instance for (Either String)?
by GHC 25 Oct '18

25 Oct '18

#12160: MonadFail instance for (Either String)? -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: lexi.lambda | Owner: Type: feature | Status: new request | Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: libraries | Version: 8.0.1 (other) | 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: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- I think one of the cool things about breaking out `MonadFail` would be the opportunity to introduce an instance for `Either String`, which isn’t possible to do with plain `Monad` without overlapping instances. The instance itself would be completely trivial: {{{#!hs instance MonadFail (Either String) where fail = Left }}} The only possible reason to ''not'' do this, as far as I can tell, would be because it requires `FlexibleInstances`. This already seems to be used for a few instances in `base`, and it seems like it would be extremely useful, so I would really appreciate if such an instance was defined. I’d be happy to submit a patch to add it, but I wasn’t sure if this would be an uncontroversial change or not. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12160> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 15

[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] #12119: Can't create injective type family equation with TypeError as the RHS
by GHC 23 Oct '18

23 Oct '18

#12119: Can't create injective type family equation with TypeError as the RHS -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: RyanGlScott | Owner: Type: feature | Status: new request | Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 8.0.1 (Type checker) | Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple CustomTypeErrors, TypeFamilies, | Injective | Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- For the longest time, I've wanted to make a type family like this injective: {{{#!hs type family Foo (a :: *) :: * where Foo Bar = Int Foo Baz = Char }}} But the problem is that `Foo` is defined on //all// types of kind `*`, so the above definition is inherently non-injective. With the introduction of `TypeError`s, however, I thought I could rule out all other cases: {{{#!hs import GHC.TypeLits type family Foo (a :: *) = (r :: *) | r -> a where Foo Bar = Int Foo Baz = Char Foo _ = TypeError ('Text "boom") }}} But this doesn't work, sadly: {{{ Injective.hs:18:3: error: • Type family equations violate injectivity annotation: Foo Bar = Int -- Defined at Injective.hs:18:3 Foo _ = (TypeError ...) -- Defined at Injective.hs:20:3 • In the equations for closed type family ‘Foo’ In the type family declaration for ‘Foo’ Injective.hs:20:3: error: • Type family equation violates injectivity annotation. Type variable ‘_’ cannot be inferred from the right-hand side. In the type family equation: Foo _ = (TypeError ...) -- Defined at Injective.hs:20:3 • In the equations for closed type family ‘Foo’ In the type family declaration for ‘Foo’ Injective.hs:20:3: error: • Type family equation violates injectivity annotation. RHS of injective type family equation cannot be a type family: Foo _ = (TypeError ...) -- Defined at Injective.hs:20:3 • In the equations for closed type family ‘Foo’ In the type family declaration for ‘Foo’ }}} From GHC's perspective, `TypeError` is just another type family, so it thinks it violates injectivity. But should this be the case? After all, having the RHS of a type family equation being `TypeError` is, in my perspective, tantamount to making that type family undefined for those inputs. It seems like if we successfully conclude that `Foo a ~ Foo b` (and GHC hasn't blown up yet due to type erroring), we should be able to conclude that `a ~ b`. Could this be accomplished by simply adding a special case for `TypeError` in the injectivity checker? -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12119> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

1 10