Re: [GHC] #12454: Cross-module specialisation of recursive functions

3 Aug 2016


      #12454: Cross-module specialisation of recursive functions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
        Reporter:  mpickering        |                Owner:
            Type:  bug               |               Status:  new
        Priority:  normal            |            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:  #5928             |  Differential Rev(s):
       Wiki Page:                    |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Description changed by mpickering:

@@ -52,0 +52,7 @@
+ The two attached files contain the core for these two programs. They were
+ compiled with
+
+ {{{
+ ghc-8.0.1 -fforce-recomp -ddump-simpl -O2 mtl-stack.hs
+ }}}
+

New description:

 It is common for library authors to write overloaded functions but in
 doing so they cause a performance penalty for their consumers as GHC
 refuses the specialise such functions across modules.

 For example,

 {{{#!hs
 {-# language FlexibleContexts #-}
 module M where

 import Control.Monad.IO.Class
 import Control.Monad.Reader

 hello :: (MonadIO m, MonadReader Int m) => Int -> m ()
 hello n = do
     m <- ask
     case m `mod` n == 0 of
       True  -> liftIO $ print "helloo"
       False -> hello (n-1)
 }}}

 Using `hello` in a client module, we would like to optimise away the
 explicit dictionary passing once we specialise `hello` to a specific monad
 stack.

 {{{#!hs
 import M

 import Control.Monad.Reader
 import M (hello)

 main :: IO ()
 main = runReaderT (hello 128) 42
 }}}

 However, as `hello` is recursive its unfolding was not included in the
 interface file. As a result, the specialisation can't take place which
 leaves us with less efficient code.

 The solution to this is mark `hello` as `INLINABLE`. Once we do this the
 unfolding of `hello` is included in the interface file even though `hello`
 will never be inlined as it is self-recursive and hence the loop-breaker.
 Once included in the interface file, GHC can properly specialise `hello`
 and produce optimal code.

 An aside, it is quite strange to mark such a recursive definition as
 `INLINABLE` to get this behaviour
 as you know it will never be inlined. It would perhaps be better to have a
 better named pragma which ensured unfoldings were placed in interface
 files.

 The two attached files contain the core for these two programs. They were
 compiled with

 {{{
 ghc-8.0.1 -fforce-recomp -ddump-simpl -O2 mtl-stack.hs
 }}}

 This ticket is to track the behaviour of these types of definitions which
 are very common in the wild.

 A proposed solution on #5928 was to add a flag to always mark overloaded
 functions as inlinable to make sure these specialisations can take place.
 This is something which I am planning to implement in order to see what
 the consequences are in terms of performance and interface file sizes.

--

--
Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12454#comment:1
GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

    