#10319: Eta expand PAPs -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: nomeata | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.10.1 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Blocked By: Test Case: | Related Tickets: Blocking: | Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- SPJ writes in ticket:10260#comment:11: But see this note in SimplUtils: {{{ Note [Do not eta-expand PAPs] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We used to have old_arity = manifestArity rhs, which meant that we would eta-expand even PAPs. But this gives no particular advantage, and can lead to a massive blow-up in code size, exhibited by Trac #9020. Suppose we have a PAP foo :: IO () foo = returnIO () Then we can eta-expand do foo = (\eta. (returnIO () |> sym g) eta) |> g where g :: IO () ~ State# RealWorld -> (# State# RealWorld, () #) But there is really no point in doing this, and it generates masses of coercions and whatnot that eventually disappear again. For T9020, GHC allocated 6.6G beore, and 0.8G afterwards; and residency dropped from 1.8G to 45M. But note that this won't eta-expand, say f = \g -> map g Does it matter not eta-expanding such functions? I'm not sure. Perhaps strictness analysis will have less to bite on? }}} The worse code for the un-eta-expanded code for last is perhaps an example of the last paragraph! And yet the comment is reasonably convincing. I'm not sure what to do here. One thing that might be worth trying is to eta-expand as far as poss without bumping into a coercion. That would expand last but not foo. Want to try that? We may fix last but there are sure to be other cases, and the more robust the optimisations the better. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10319 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler