I wonder why drop isn't inlined in your example. That would surely make
And if so, do they share a common call pattern (e.g. j (I# n) xs)? Then
#14068: Loopification using join points -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: nomeata | Owner: nomeata Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 8.0.1 Resolution: | Keywords: JoinPoints Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: #13966 #14067 | Differential Rev(s): Phab:D3811 #14827 | Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by nomeata): the allocation go away? Are there multiple calls to drop that obstruct inlining? I am only using `drop` as an example here, the real thing might be much larger; too large to be inlined. I’ll have to look. that's one of the cases non-rec specialisation might be beneficial. Yes, that is the hope! -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/14068#comment:40 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler