However, I think the recursive variant is novel (although admittedly
If we include an INLINEABLE pragma (as most performance-aware authors would do) then we can convince GHC to produce an unfolding, but only at
#12463: SPECIALIZABLE pragma? -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: bgamari | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 8.0.1 Resolution: | Keywords: Inlining Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s): Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by simonpj): poorly specified). What is "the recursive variant"? The Description says: the expense of lowering its inlining cost as wel. That is not true. INLINABLE does ''not'' reduce the inlining cost. It merely (and solely) arranges to capture the entire (Core of the) source- code defnition, including if the function is recursive. No more and no less.
We really just want GHC to behave like each use-site's module has a SPECIALISE pragma for each concrete type that the function is used at.
And that is exactly what INLINABLE does. I feel I'm missing something. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12463#comment:5 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler