Hello Taral,
Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 2:14:17 AM, you wrote:
T> On 3/18/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty
Of course, the caller could invoke addmul using a bang patterns, as in
let ( !s, !p ) = addmul x y in ...
but that's quite different to statically knowing (from the type) that the two results of addmul will already be evaluated. The latter leaves room for more optimisations.
T> I looked back at this, and I'm not sure that this statement (which T> appears to be the core reason for considering this) is true at all. I T> don't see that more optimization follows from the availability of T> information regarding the strictness of a function result's T> subcomponents. ghc uses unboxed tuples just for such sort of optimizations. instead of returning possibly-unevaluated pair with possibly-unevaluated elements it just return, say, two doubles in registers - a huge win -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com