Yes, exactly. I'm not happy with doing this (or rather having to anticipate doing this), either.
I've got lost. What exactly is "this"? Are you happy with what I
#15519: Minor code refactoring leads to drastic performance degradation -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: danilo2 | Owner: (none) Type: bug | Status: new Priority: highest | Milestone: 8.8.1 Component: Compiler | Version: 8.4.3 Resolution: | Keywords: SpecConstr 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 sgraf): Replying to [comment:21 simonpj]: propose in #15578? Sorry, I could have been clearer. TLDR; I'm quite happy, the comment was unrelated to anything you wrote. In comment:10, I wrote (with a little more context):
So, the fix to apply in your situation seems to be to eta-expand test1 and omit the INLINE pragma.
That's what @danilo2's comment:15 alludes to when he writes
I strongly disagree with the sentence that the "fix would be to remove INLINE pragma" [...] I suspect @sgraf that you didn't mean "fix" but instead a "dirty workaround for now", but I preferred to emphasize my worries regarding this matter.
So, by "this" in comment:20, I meant the workaround of manually eta- expanding and (more importantly) omitting the INLINE pragma. I'm quite happy about #15578 :) Not sure about consequences for library authors being used to the old behavior (if they were even aware of it), though. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/15519#comment:22 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler