On Dec 7, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:

On 07 December 2005 16:38, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

...

"Simon Marlow" writes:

...

I should have said that if 'acts' blocks, then the transformation is invalid.

Well that is exactly what I was assuming when I said that the transformation is invalid. In the general case, for some arbitrary actions between the write and the read (excluding another write of course), there is no guarantee that the IORef remains unmodified.

This is an analysis that's performed all the time in C compilers, it's quite straightforward to do a good approximation. One simple algorithm is: a store can be forwarded to a matching read as long as there are no intervening writes that may alias, or function calls.

C does this and C has threads, so what's the difference?

I would personally be very uncomfortable justifying a semantic transformation based on common practice in C compilers. What exactly are the semantics of C programs and why do we believe that C compilers are correct? I'd much rather see some argument in terms of an appropriate definition of observational equivalence. [snip] Rob Dockins

"Simon Marlow" writes:

...

In the general case, for some arbitrary actions between the write and the read (excluding another write of course), there is no guarantee that the IORef remains unmodified.

This is an analysis that's performed all the time in C compilers, it's quite straightforward to do a good approximation. One simple algorithm is: a store can be forwarded to a matching read as long as there are no intervening writes that may alias, or function calls.

C does this and C has threads, so what's the difference?

There is a big difference between C variables and IORefs. For one thing, a C variable can have scope local to a procedure. If so, then the suggested transformation is entirely valid even in the presence of threads, because no other thread is permitted access to the local variable. M[fp+offset(x)] <- v ... w <- M[fp+offset(x)] ===> M[fp+offset(x)] <- v ... w <- v Global variables are more tricky, but I guess it is probably common to permit the elimination of the 'read' there as well, even though technically this is unsafe in the presence of threads. My guess is that this behaviour is the cause of a lot of thread unsafeness in common C libraries however. M[address(x)] <- v ... w <- M[address(x)] ===> M[address(x)] <- v ... w <- v Haskell has neither local nor global variables in the same sense as C. IORefs more closely resemble C pointers. A pointer has indeterminate lifetime and scope. It can be passed around from procedure to procedure, and from thread to thread. There can be aliases to the same memory location in multiple other contexts. If I'm writing a hardware driver, the pointer address might be memory-mapped to a device register, in which case writing to that address and immediately reading back from it may not be an identity. I've certainly dealt with devices where the same hardware port when written to, expects control data, but when read from delivers status data. So here: M[M[x]] <- v ... w <- M[M[x]] it would be totally incorrect for the compiler to eliminate the read. Regards, Malcolm