#8774: Transitivity of Auto-Specialization -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: crockeea | Status: new Type: bug | Milestone: Priority: | Version: 7.6.3 normal | Operating System: Linux Component: | Type of failure: Compile-time performance bug Compiler | Test Case: Keywords: | Blocking: Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple | Difficulty: | Unknown | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: 5928, | 8668, 8099 | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- From [http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.6.3/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#idp49866... the docs]: [Y]ou often don't even need the SPECIALIZE pragma in the first place. When compiling a module M, GHC's optimiser (with -O) automatically considers each top-level overloaded function declared in M, and specialises it for the different types at which it is called in M. The optimiser also considers each imported INLINABLE overloaded function, and specialises it for the different types at which it is called in M. ... Moreover, given a SPECIALIZE pragma for a function f, GHC will automatically create specialisations for any type-class-overloaded functions called by f, if they are in the same module as the SPECIALIZE pragma, or if they are INLINABLE; and so on, transitively. So GHC should automatically specialize some/most/all(?) functions marked `INLINABLE` ''without'' a pragma, and if I use an explicit pragma, the specialization is transitive. My question is: is the ''auto''-specialization transitive? Either way, I'd like to see the docs updated to answer this question. Specifically, the attached files demonstrate a bug if auto-specialization ''should'' be transitive. Main.hs: {{{ #!haskell import Data.Vector.Unboxed as U import Foo main = let y = Bar $ Qux $ U.replicate 11221184 0 :: Foo (Qux Int) (Bar (Qux ans)) = iterate (plus y) y !! 100 in putStr $ show $ foldl1' (*) ans }}} Foo.hs: {{{ #!haskell module Foo (Qux(..), Foo(..), plus) where import Data.Vector.Unboxed as U newtype Qux r = Qux (Vector r) -- GHC inlines `plus` if I remove the bangs or the Baz constructor data Foo t = Bar !t | Baz !t instance (Num r, Unbox r) => Num (Qux r) where {-# INLINABLE (+) #-} (Qux x) + (Qux y) = Qux $ U.zipWith (+) x y {-# INLINABLE plus #-} plus :: (Num t) => (Foo t) -> (Foo t) -> (Foo t) plus (Bar v1) (Bar v2) = Bar $ v1 + v2 }}} GHC specializes the call to `plus`, but does *not* specialize `(+)` in the `Qux` `Num` instance. (In the attached core excerpt: `main6` calls `iterate main8`. `main8` is just `plus`, specialized for `Int`. So far so good. However, `splus` calls the *polymorphic* `c+`. If auto- specialization is transitive, I expect `c+` to be specialized to `Int`.) This kills performance: an explicit pragma `{-# SPECIALIZE plus :: Foo (Qux Int) -> Foo (Qux Int) -> Foo (Qux Int) #-}` results in ''transitive'' specialization as the docs indicate, so `(+)` is specialized and the code is 30x faster. Is this expected behavior? Should I only expect `(+)` to be specialized transitively with an explicit pragma? Note: this question is different from #5928 for two reasons: 1. I believe that no inlining is occuring, and hence I don't think inlining is interfering with specialization 2. I have `INLINABLE` pragmas on all relevant functions. Note: this question is different from #8668 because I am asking about ''auto''-specialization. This question was originally posted on [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21502335/transitivity-of-auto- specialization-in-ghc StackOverflow]. As mentioned in the comments of that question, I am intentionally ''not'' fully applying the call to `plus` in Main, contrary to the suggestions in #8099. I'd love to see why I'm getting that behavior as well. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8774 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler