| So it seems to me that NOINLINE should prevent inlining but not prevent | calling the worker rather than the wrapper. I don't fully understand how | NOINLINE interacts with the worker/wrapper transform (or I wouldn't have | been surprised by this behaviour). I'm guessing that it works by doing | the worker/wrapper split and then trying to inline the wrapper into as | many call sites as possible. If this is indeed how it works then it'd | explain why attaching NOINLINE to the function causes the observed | behaviour since looking at the .hi file we see that the NOINLINE is | attached to the wrapper function and not the worker. Exactly. And indeed, it doesn't really make sense to do a w/w split on a NOINLINE thing, if this is what happens. | So perhaps the solution is to attach the NOINLINE to the worker rather | than the wrapper when doing the worker/wrapper split. Would that work or | cause other problems? That is easily changed. But consider that you may have put that NOININE pragma there to stop the thing inlining so that a RULE would fire. We presumably do not want to uncritically make a NOINLINE thing into an INLINE thing, just because it's strict; that would nullify the carefully set pragmas to make sure the rules worked. I suggest you say NOINLINE [0]; that prevents inlining until the final phases of compilation, which is probably what you want. See if that works. Meanwhile, I should probably do no w/w for NOINLINE things. I'll postpone until this thread settles. Simon