- Glasgow-haskell-users

GSoC proposal: Units for GHC
by Nils Schweinsberg 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Hi Haskell-Cafe & GHC-users! I'm looking to apply for the GSoC and since I've worked on GHC before I'd like to continue to do so. My proposal would be something that tempted me (as a physics student) for a while: Units for Haskell/GHC. This project has been suggested for a long time on the GHC wiki, and there is already a lot of work done for other languages like ML, F# etc[1]. I have tried to implement e.g. the unification algorithm from the "Types for Units-of-Measure in F#" talk[2] for an abstract syntax tree[3] and it was pretty much straight forward. As I see it, the project would consist of: 1.) Find appropriate rules/algorithms for unit analysis. Most (if not all?) of this should be covered in those papers/talks on [1]. 2.) Applying the rules to the Haskell syntax tree used in GHC. I have approximately 3 years of experience with Haskell, I worked for the database research group[4] at the University of Tübingen (Germany) on the Database Supported Haskell[5] library. I've done most of the coding for the monad comprehension[6] extension, which has been added to the latest GHC release version. I'm already quite familiar with the GHC internals of the compiler/typechecker, and even though I'd have to look up how exactly type interference etc. works in GHC (as I've only *used* it, but never tried to understand/modify it) I'm confident that the work on GHC itself should be doable in the given timeframe. So my questions would be: Do you think this is a appropriate GSoC project? What should I include in the application/project proposal? Anything else? Opinions, suggestions? I realize that I'm kind of late and probably should have written this email a long time ago. But there are still 2 days left for the student application and hopefully I'll get some good feedback by then. - Nils [1]: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/akenn/units/index.html [2]: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/akenn/units/MLWorkshop2008.pdf [3]: https://github.com/mcmaniac/units/blob/master/src/Unification.hs [4]: http://db.inf.uni-tuebingen.de/team [5]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/DSH [6]: http://db.inf.uni-tuebingen.de/files/giorgidze/haskell2011.pdf

5 5

A Modest Records Proposal
by Gershom B 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

The records discussion has been really complicated and confusing. But I have a suggestion that should provide a great deal of power to records, while being mostly[1] backwards-compatible with Haskell 2010. Consider this example: data A a = A{a:a, aa::a, aaa :: a -> A (a -> a)} data B a = B{aaa :: a -> A (a -> a), a :: A} Now what is the type of this? aaaa aaaaa a aa = aaaaa{a = a, aaa = aa} Using standard Haskell typeclasses this is a difficult question to answer. The types of aaaa for A and B do not unify in an obvious way. However, while they are intensionally quite distinct, they unify trivially extensionally. The obvious thing to do is then to extend the type system with extensional equality on record functions. Back when Haskell was invented, extensional equality was thought to be hard. But purity was thought to be hard too, and so were Monads. Now, we know that function existentionality is easy. In fact, if we add the Univalence Axiom to GHC[2], then this is enough to get function existensionality. This is a well-known result of Homotopy Type Theory[3], which is a well-explored approach that has existed for at least a few years and produced more than one paper[4]. Homotopy Type Theory is so sound and well understood that it has even been formalized in Coq. Once we extend GHC with homotopies, it turns out that records reduce to mere syntactic sugar, and there is a natural proof of their soundness (Appendix A). Furthermore, there is a canonical projection for any group of fields (Appendix B). Even better, we can make "." into the identity path operator, unifying its uses in composition and projection. In fact, with extended (parenthesis-free) section rules, "." can also be used to terminate expressions, making Haskell friendly not only to programmers coming from Java, but also to those coming from Prolog! After some initial feedback, I'm going to create a page for the Homotopy Extensional Records Proposal (HERP) on trac. There are really only a few remaining questions. 1) Having introduced homotopies, why not go all the way and introduce dependent records? In fact, are HERP and Dependent Extensional Records Proposal (DERP) already isomorphic? My suspicion is that HERP is isomorphic, but DERP is not. However, I can only get away with my proof using Scott-free semantics. 2) Which trac should I post this too? Given how well understood homotopy type theory is, I'm tempted to bypass GHC entirely and propose this for haskell-prime. 3) What syntax should we use to represent homotopies? See extend discussion in Appendix C. HTH HAND, Gershom [1] To be precise, 100% of Haskell 2010 programs should, usually, be able to be rewritten to work with this proposal with a minimal set of changes[1a]. [1a] A minimal set of changes is defined as the smallest set of changes necessary to make to a Haskell 2010 program such that it works with this proposal. We can arrive at these changes by the following procedure: 1) Pick a change[1b]. 2) Is it minimal? If so keep it. 3) are we done? If not, make another change. [1b] To do this constructively, we need an order. I suggest the lo mein, since noodles give rise to a free soda. [2] I haven't looked at the source, but I would suggest putting it in the file Axioms.hs. [3] http://homotopytypetheory.org/ [4] http://arxiv.org/ *Appendix A: A Natural Proof of the Soundness of HERP Take the category of all types in HERP, with functions as morphisms. Call it C. Take the category of all sound expressions in HERP, with functions as morphisms. Call it D. Define a full functor from C to D. Call it F. Define a faithful functor on C and D. Call it G. Draw the following diagram. F(X)----F(Y) | | | | | | G(X)----G(Y) Define the arrows such that everything commutes. *Appendix B: Construction of a Canonical Projection for Any Group of Fields. 1) Take the fields along the homotopy to an n-ball. 2) Pack them loosely with newspaper and gunpowder. 3) Project them from a cannon. In an intuitionistic logic, the following simplification is possible: 1) Use your intuition. *Appendix C: Homotopy Syntax Given that we already are using the full unicode set, what syntax should we use to distinguish paths and homotopies? At first, I thought we could avoid providing any syntax for homotopies at all. Haskell is a language with type inference, so we should just be able to infer paths and homotopies behind the scenes by adding homotopies to the type system. That's a very nice answer in theory. But in the real world, when we're writing code that solves actual problems, theoretical niceties break down. What if a user wants to use a nonstandard homotopy? Why should we stop them just because we're too lazy to come up with a good syntax? I then realized that we keep running out of syntax because we've limited ourselves to unicode. Instead, I propose we add a potentially infinite universe of identifiers: youtube videos. For example, the higher inductive type for a circle can be written as: homotopyType http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ where Base ::: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Loop ::: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J---aiyznGQ Base Base Note that the urls do not use SSL. For portability reasons, I propose that SSL only be enabled as an optional extension.

3 2

Re: [Haskell-cafe] A Modest Records Proposal
by Greg Weber 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

Obviously Gregory is not familiar with Homotopy. In fact, its isomorphism predicts that if someone named Greg is involved in a discussion, someone named Gregory will also become involved. Or that is what I get for responding to an e-mail without reading it on April 1st :) On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Gregory Collins <greg(a)gregorycollins.net> wrote: > Whoosh? :-) > > On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Greg Weber <greg(a)gregweber.info> wrote: >> >> Hi Gershom, >> >> This sounds very interesting even if I have no idea what you are >> talking about :) >> Please create a proposal linked from this page: >> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records >> The first thing you should probably do is explain the programmer's >> point of view. That ensures that we are all going through the >> requirements phase correctly. >> I can assure you that haskell prime would not accept a records change >> until it is first implemented in GHC or another Haskell compiler. >> >> Thanks, >> Greg Weber >> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Gershom B <gershomb(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > The records discussion has been really complicated and confusing. But >> > I have a suggestion that should provide a great deal of power to >> > records, while being mostly[1] backwards-compatible with Haskell 2010. >> > Consider this example: >> > >> > data A a = A{a:a, aa::a, aaa :: a -> A (a -> a)} >> > data B a = B{aaa :: a -> A (a -> a), a :: A} >> > >> > Now what is the type of this? >> > >> > aaaa aaaaa a aa = aaaaa{a = a, aaa = aa} >> > >> > Using standard Haskell typeclasses this is a difficult question to >> > answer. The types of aaaa for A and B do not unify in an obvious way. >> > However, while they are intensionally quite distinct, they unify >> > trivially extensionally. The obvious thing to do is then to extend the >> > type system with extensional equality on record functions. >> > >> > Back when Haskell was invented, extensional equality was thought to be >> > hard. But purity was thought to be hard too, and so were Monads. Now, >> > we know that function existentionality is easy. In fact, if we add the >> > Univalence Axiom to GHC[2], then this is enough to get function >> > existensionality. This is a well-known result of Homotopy Type >> > Theory[3], which is a well-explored approach that has existed for at >> > least a few years and produced more than one paper[4]. Homotopy Type >> > Theory is so sound and well understood that it has even been >> > formalized in Coq. >> > >> > Once we extend GHC with homotopies, it turns out that records reduce >> > to mere syntactic sugar, and there is a natural proof of their >> > soundness (Appendix A). Furthermore, there is a canonical projection >> > for any group of fields (Appendix B). Even better, we can make "." >> > into the identity path operator, unifying its uses in composition and >> > projection. In fact, with extended (parenthesis-free) section rules, >> > "." can also be used to terminate expressions, making Haskell friendly >> > not only to programmers coming from Java, but also to those coming >> > from Prolog! >> > >> > After some initial feedback, I'm going to create a page for the >> > Homotopy Extensional Records Proposal (HERP) on trac. There are really >> > only a few remaining questions. 1) Having introduced homotopies, why >> > not go all the way and introduce dependent records? In fact, are HERP >> > and Dependent Extensional Records Proposal (DERP) already isomorphic? >> > My suspicion is that HERP is isomorphic, but DERP is not. However, I >> > can only get away with my proof using Scott-free semantics. 2) Which >> > trac should I post this too? Given how well understood homotopy type >> > theory is, I'm tempted to bypass GHC entirely and propose this for >> > haskell-prime. 3) What syntax should we use to represent homotopies? >> > See extend discussion in Appendix C. >> > >> > HTH HAND, >> > Gershom >> > >> > [1] To be precise, 100% of Haskell 2010 programs should, usually, be >> > able to be rewritten to work with this proposal with a minimal set of >> > changes[1a]. >> > >> > [1a] A minimal set of changes is defined as the smallest set of >> > changes necessary to make to a Haskell 2010 program such that it works >> > with this proposal. We can arrive at these changes by the following >> > procedure: 1) Pick a change[1b]. 2) Is it minimal? If so keep it. 3) >> > are we done? If not, make another change. >> > >> > [1b] To do this constructively, we need an order. I suggest the lo >> > mein, since noodles give rise to a free soda. >> > >> > [2] I haven't looked at the source, but I would suggest putting it in >> > the file Axioms.hs. >> > >> > [3] http://homotopytypetheory.org/ >> > >> > [4] http://arxiv.org/ >> > >> > >> > *Appendix A: A Natural Proof of the Soundness of HERP >> > >> > Take the category of all types in HERP, with functions as morphisms. >> > Call it C. Take the category of all sound expressions in HERP, with >> > functions as morphisms. Call it D. Define a full functor from C to D. >> > Call it F. Define a faithful functor on C and D. Call it G. Draw the >> > following diagram. >> > >> > F(X)----F(Y) >> > | | >> > | | >> > | | >> > G(X)----G(Y) >> > >> > Define the arrows such that everything commutes. >> > >> > >> > *Appendix B: Construction of a Canonical Projection for Any Group of >> > Fields. >> > >> > 1) Take the fields along the homotopy to an n-ball. >> > 2) Pack them loosely with newspaper and gunpowder. >> > 3) Project them from a cannon. >> > >> > In an intuitionistic logic, the following simplification is possible: >> > >> > 1) Use your intuition. >> > >> > >> > *Appendix C: Homotopy Syntax >> > >> > Given that we already are using the full unicode set, what syntax >> > should we use to distinguish paths and homotopies? At first, I thought >> > we could avoid providing any syntax for homotopies at all. Haskell is >> > a language with type inference, so we should just be able to infer >> > paths and homotopies behind the scenes by adding homotopies to the >> > type system. That's a very nice answer in theory. But in the real >> > world, when we're writing code that solves actual problems, >> > theoretical niceties break down. What if a user wants to use a >> > nonstandard homotopy? >> > >> > Why should we stop them just because we're too lazy to come up with a >> > good syntax? I then realized that we keep running out of syntax >> > because we've limited ourselves to unicode. Instead, I propose we add >> > a potentially infinite universe of identifiers: youtube videos. For >> > example, the higher inductive type for a circle can be written as: >> > >> > homotopyType http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ where >> > Base ::: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ >> > Loop ::: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J---aiyznGQ Base Base >> > >> > Note that the urls do not use SSL. For portability reasons, I propose >> > that SSL only be enabled as an optional extension. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list >> > Glasgow-haskell-users(a)haskell.org >> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe(a)haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > > -- > Gregory Collins <greg(a)gregorycollins.net>

5 5

cabal install version selection
by Christian Höner zu Siederdissen 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

Hi everybody, I fail to remember or re-google the package version selection for cabal, if no version constraints are given. If I depend on "iteratee", and there are no constraints, does it take the lowest version? When I pushed the newest version of the RNAFold package, the log showed iteratee-0.1.0 to be used, which failed of course: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/RNAFold/1.99.1.0/logs/failure/g… It got really weird, however when I saw that the dependency BiobaseVienna-0.2.2.3, which is the one actually using iteratee, was built correctly. Of course, seeing the error of my way, I have started adding more version constraints to every package I maintain. Gruss, Christian

3 2

Code review for new primop's CMM code?
by Ryan Newton 30 Mar '12

30 Mar '12

Perhaps a question mark is more appropriate in the title. It is a code review I am seeking, not one on offer ;-). On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > In preparation for students working on concurrent data structures GSOC(s), > I wanted to make sure they could count on CAS for array elements as well as > IORefs. The following patch represents my first attempt: > > > https://github.com/rrnewton/ghc/commit/18ed460be111b47a759486677960093d71ee… > > It passes a simple test [Appendix 2 below], but I am very unsure as to > whether the GC write barrier is correct. Could someone do a code-review on > the following few lines of CMM: > > if (GET_INFO(arr) == stg_MUT_ARR_PTRS_CLEAN_info) { > SET_HDR(arr, stg_MUT_ARR_PTRS_DIRTY_info, CCCS); > len = StgMutArrPtrs_ptrs(arr); > // The write barrier. We must write a byte into the mark table: > I8[arr + SIZEOF_StgMutArrPtrs + WDS(len) + (ind >> > MUT_ARR_PTRS_CARD_BITS )] = 1; > } > > Thanks, > -Ryan > > -- Appendix 1: First draft code CMM definition for casArray# > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > stg_casArrayzh > /* MutableArray# s a -> Int# -> a -> a -> State# s -> (# State# s, Int#, a > #) */ > { > W_ arr, p, ind, old, new, h, len; > arr = R1; // anything else? > ind = R2; > old = R3; > new = R4; > > p = arr + SIZEOF_StgMutArrPtrs + WDS(ind); > (h) = foreign "C" cas(p, old, new) []; > > if (h != old) { > // Failure, return what was there instead of 'old': > RET_NP(1,h); > } else { > // Compare and Swap Succeeded: > if (GET_INFO(arr) == stg_MUT_ARR_PTRS_CLEAN_info) { > SET_HDR(arr, stg_MUT_ARR_PTRS_DIRTY_info, CCCS); > len = StgMutArrPtrs_ptrs(arr); > // The write barrier. We must write a byte into the mark table: > I8[arr + SIZEOF_StgMutArrPtrs + WDS(len) + (ind >> > MUT_ARR_PTRS_CARD_BITS )] = 1; > } > RET_NP(0,h); > } > } > > -- Appendix 2: Simple test file; when run it should print: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Perform a CAS within a MutableArray# > -- 1st try should succeed: (True,33) > -- 2nd should fail: (False,44) > -- Printing array: > -- 33 33 33 44 33 > -- Done. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > {-# Language MagicHash, UnboxedTuples #-} > > import GHC.IO > import GHC.IORef > import GHC.ST > import GHC.STRef > import GHC.Prim > import GHC.Base > import Data.Primitive.Array > import Control.Monad > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- -- | Write a value to the array at the given index: > casArrayST :: MutableArray s a -> Int -> a -> a -> ST s (Bool, a) > casArrayST (MutableArray arr#) (I# i#) old new = ST$ \s1# -> > case casArray# arr# i# old new s1# of > (# s2#, x#, res #) -> (# s2#, (x# ==# 0#, res) #) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > {-# NOINLINE mynum #-} > mynum :: Int > mynum = 33 > > main = do > putStrLn "Perform a CAS within a MutableArray#" > arr <- newArray 5 mynum > > res <- stToIO$ casArrayST arr 3 mynum 44 > res2 <- stToIO$ casArrayST arr 3 mynum 44 > putStrLn$ " 1st try should succeed: "++show res > putStrLn$ "2nd should fail: "++show res2 > > putStrLn "Printing array:" > forM_ [0..4] $ \ i -> do > x <- readArray arr i > putStr (" "++show x) > putStrLn "" > putStrLn "Done." > >

1 0

[sajith@gmail.com: Google Summer of Code: a NUMA wishlist!]
by Sajith T S 29 Mar '12

29 Mar '12

Greetings, I originally posted this message to haskell-cafe, and was told that this list might be a more appropriate place to seek feedback. I'm curious to know what people think of this proposal. Thanks in advance! Regards, Sajith. ----- Forwarded message from Sajith T S <sajith(a)gmail.com> ----- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:49:52 -0400 From: Sajith T S <sajith(a)gmail.com> To: The Haskell Cafe <haskell-cafe(a)haskell.org> Subject: Google Summer of Code: a NUMA wishlist! Dear Cafe, It's last minute-ish to bring this up (in my part of the world it's still March 25), but graduate students are famously a busy and lazy lot. :) I study at Indiana University Bloomington, and I wish to propose^W rush in this proposal and solicit feedback, mentors, etc while I can. Since student application deadline is April 6, I figure we can beat this into a real proposal's shape by then. This probably also falls on the naive and ambitious side of things, and I might not even know what I'm talking about, but let's see! That's the idea of proposal, yes? Broadly, idea is to improve support for NUMA systems. Specifically: -- Real physical processor affinity with forkOn [1]. Can we fire all CPUs if we want to? (Currently, the number passed to forkOn is interpreted as number modulo the value returned by getNumCapabilities [2]). -- Also kind of associated with the above: when launching processes, we might want to specify a list of CPUs rather than the number of CPUs. Say, a -N [0,1,3] flag rather than -N 3 flag. This shall enable us to gawk at real pretty htop [3] output. -- From a very recent discussion on parallel-haskell [4], we learn that RTS' NUMA support could be improved. The hypothesis is that allocating nurseries per Capability might be a better plan than using global pool. We might borrow/steal ideas from hwloc [5] for this. -- Finally, a logging/monitoring infrastructure to verify assumptions and determine if/how local work stays. (I would like to acknowledge my fellow conspirators and leave them unnamed, lest they shall be embarrassed by my... naivete.) Thanks, Sajith. [1] http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base/Control-Concurre… [2] http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base/Control-Concurre… [3] http://htop.sourceforge.net/ [4] http://groups.google.com/group/parallel-haskell/browse_thread/thread/7ec1eb… [5] http://www.open-mpi.org/projects/hwloc/ -- "the lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne." -- Chaucer. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- "the lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne." -- Chaucer.

3 9

Records in Haskell
by Simon Peyton-Jones 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

Friends Provoked the (very constructive) Yesod blog post on "Limitations of Haskell", and the follow up discussion, I've started a wiki page to collect whatever ideas we have about the name spacing issue for record fields. http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records As Simon M said on Reddit, this is something we'd like to fix; but we need a consensus on how to fix it. Simon

41 183

ANNOUNCE: GHC version 7.2.1
by Ian Lynagh 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

============================================================= The (Interactive) Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 7.2.1 ============================================================= The GHC Team is pleased to announce a new major release of GHC, 7.2.1. The 7.2 branch is intended to be more of a "technology preview" than normal GHC stable branches; in particular, it supports a significantly improved version of DPH, as well as new features such as compiler plugins and "safe Haskell". The design of these new features may evolve as we get more experience with them. See the release notes for more details of what's new and what's changed. We are also using this branch as an opportunity to work out the best workflows to use with git. We expect the 7.2 branch to be short-lived, with 7.4.1 coming out shortly after ICFP as normal. Full release notes are here: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.2.1/html/users_guide/release-7-2-1.html How to get it ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The easy way is to go to the web page, which should be self-explanatory: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ We supply binary builds in the native package format for many platforms, and the source distribution is available from the same place. Packages will appear as they are built - if the package for your system isn't available yet, please try again later. Background ~~~~~~~~~~ Haskell is a standard lazy functional programming language. GHC is a state-of-the-art programming suite for Haskell. Included is an optimising compiler generating good code for a variety of platforms, together with an interactive system for convenient, quick development. The distribution includes space and time profiling facilities, a large collection of libraries, and support for various language extensions, including concurrency, exceptions, and foreign language interfaces (C, whatever). GHC is distributed under a BSD-style open source license. A wide variety of Haskell related resources (tutorials, libraries, specifications, documentation, compilers, interpreters, references, contact information, links to research groups) are available from the Haskell home page (see below). On-line GHC-related resources ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Relevant URLs on the World-Wide Web: GHC home page http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ GHC developers' home page http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ Haskell home page http://www.haskell.org/ Supported Platforms ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The list of platforms we support, and the people responsible for them, is here: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Contributors Ports to other platforms are possible with varying degrees of difficulty. The Building Guide describes how to go about porting to a new platform: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building Developers ~~~~~~~~~~ We welcome new contributors. Instructions on accessing our source code repository, and getting started with hacking on GHC, are available from the GHC's developer's site run by Trac: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ Mailing lists ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We run mailing lists for GHC users and bug reports; to subscribe, use the web interfaces at http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs There are several other haskell and ghc-related mailing lists on www.haskell.org; for the full list, see http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ Some GHC developers hang out on #haskell on IRC, too: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/IRC_channel Please report bugs using our bug tracking system. Instructions on reporting bugs can be found here: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/reportabug

9 16

ADPfusion: Efficient, high-level dynamic programming
by Christian Höner zu Siederdissen 25 Mar '12

25 Mar '12

ADPfusion combines stream-fusion (using the stream interface provided by the vector library) and type-level programming to provide highly efficient dynamic programming (DP) combinators. You can write DP programs in a style similar to Algebraic Dynamic Programming (ADP) (Giegerich et al.), meaning symbolically without explicit indices. The symbolic operators provide a number of advantages: - take care of extracting the correct cell information from data structures (DP matrices) - no more index problems, the grammars are completely free of index calculations by the user - complex operators can be written with "next step" behaviour dependent on other information calculated during runtime - monadic interface - works with pure/monadic, boxed/unboxed, ... data structures - speed close to optimized C (between 1.8x - 3x slower currently -- compared to well-optimized C-code) Hackage: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/ADPfusion 1st example program: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Nussinov78 Many thanks to Roman Leshchinskiy! Viele Gruesse, Christian Hoener zu Siederdissen ADP: http://bibiserv.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/adp/adpapp.html

1 0

Stealing ideas from the latest GCC release
by Johan Tibell 24 Mar '12

24 Mar '12

Hi all, While looking at the GCC 4.7 [1] release notes I saw something that's perhaps worth stealing. Taken from the release notes: The inter-procedural constant propagation pass has been rewritten. It now performs generic function specialization. For example when compiling the following: void foo(bool flag) { if (flag) ... do something ... else ... do something else ... } void bar (void) { foo (false); foo (true); foo (false); foo (true); foo (false); foo (true); } GCC will now produce two copies of foo. One with flag being true, while other with flag being false. This leads to performance improvements previously possibly only by inlining all calls. Cloning causes a lot less code size growth. I found myself wanting something like this just today. A common pattern I see in code is this: data Options = Options { ... } defaultOptions :: Options defaultOptions = ... foo :: ... foo = fooWith defaultOptions fooWith :: Options -> ... fooWith = ... It'd be nice if we could get foo to specialize on its input arguments, without having to mark all of fooWith as INLINE. 1. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html -- Johan

5 5