#13016: SPECIALIZE INLINE doesn't necessarily inline specializations of a recursive function -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: nfrisby | Owner: (none) Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 8.0.1 Resolution: | Keywords: Inlining Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Type of failure: Runtime | Unknown/Multiple performance bug | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: #13014 | Differential Rev(s): Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by dfeuer): mpickering, I don't think it's quite a duplicate. In particular, I believe we want `SPECIALIZE INLINE` to actually ''force'' the specialization, even if it makes a lot of code and even if it risks an infinite loop in the simplifier. The idea here seems pretty cool: it lets you get the guaranteed loop unrolling you'd get from the class-based definition I wrote above when the types are known, but falls back on recursion when they're not. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13016#comment:8 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler