#9390: Inlining prevents evaluation of ignored parts of unboxed tuples -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: snoyberg | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.8.4 Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.3 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Linux | Architecture: x86_64 (amd64) Type of failure: Incorrect | Difficulty: Unknown result at runtime | Blocked By: Test Case: | Related Tickets: Blocking: | Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by simonpj): The example in comment:2 is different in kind to the main one. Considre {{{ (unsafePerformIO (do { write arr 0 'A'; return 3 }) + (unsafePerformIO (do { write arr 0 'B'; return 4 }) }}} After you evaluate this, does `arr[0]` contain `'A'` or `'B'`? Obviously it depends on the evaluation order of `(+)`. GHC is, quite specifically, at liberty to change evaluation order -- notably the strictness analyser makes quite radical changes in evaluation order -- so you absolutely cannot rely on it. Even if you say {{{ a `seq` b `seq` d }}} you cannot rely on `a` being evaluated before `b`. In short: * GHC is tries never to ''discard'' exceptions, divergence, or write effects * but it is free to ''re-order'' them (See our paper "A semantics for imprecise exceptions" for lots of detail on this.) The only way to enforce sequencing of write effects is to us the data dependency of the state token. By using `unsafePerformIO` you are specifically saying "I don't mind in what order these effects are performed relative to everything else. `unsafeInterleaveIO` lets you ensure that it occurs after the effects thus far in the do-block have occurred. So this: {{{ main = do vm <- VM.new 1 VM.write vm 0 'A' !b<- return $! 'B' x <- unsafeInterleaveIO $! VM.write vm 0 b x `seq` (V.freeze vm >>= print) }}} always prints "B". These things are not obvious. We have a good place for "collaborative documentation" of GHC, [http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC here]. Would any of you like to write an explanatory page there? Simon -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9390#comment:10 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler