PS: before we go to some effort to optimise X, can we · do some measurements to ensure that X is a problem
· check that the problem with X doesn’t have an easy solution For example: · Make a big file with lots of static data · Compile it · Check whether anything non-linear happens; how does compile time increase as you add more data? It would be entirely possible that there’s a quadratic something going on. [If this were true, then fixing the perf bug would benefit ALL programs.] · See how much faster it goes if we simply omit almost all the Core pipeline. Maybe not much! Perhaps all the cost is in the code generator. · Check the generated code to ensure that it really is just a few bytes per constructor. Maybe there’s some stupid and useless extra stuff being generated. [If this were true, the approach you propose will have no effect.] Let’s not rush to fix something until we are sure that the are fixing the real problem! I urged that we no do something special for Typeable but rather fix static data (if that is indeed the problem). Now I’m urging that we don’t do something special for static data until we are sure that the real problem is not elsewhere. Simon From: David Feuer [mailto:david.fe...@gmail.com] Sent: 17 February 2017 00:30 To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> Cc: ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>; Reid Barton <rwbar...@gmail.com>; Ben Gamari <bgam...@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Static data and RULES Let me give an example. Suppose we have data L = LCon1 Int | LCon2 data S = SCon !Int {-# RULES "L" LCon1 0 = LCon2 "S" forall x . f (SCon x) = g x #-} The immediate problem today is with "S". The SCon wrapper could very well inline before the rule has a chance to fire. We'd like to be able to phase that inline to give it a chance. The "L" rule becomes problematic when we try to identify static data the simplifier shouldn't have to try to optimize. If it identifies LCon 0 as static, the "L" rule will never fire. On Feb 16, 2017 7:08 PM, "David Feuer" <david.fe...@gmail.com<mailto:david.fe...@gmail.com>> wrote: Semantically, the proposed scheme is very nearly equivalent to breaking *every* data constructor into a worker and a wrapper, and allowing INLINE and NOINLINE pragmas on the wrappers. That would allow terms built only from constructor workers and literals to be identified as they're constructed in any stage and left alone by the simplifier. It would also allow people using RULES that match on constructors to make those work reliably, by making sure the bindings they match on don't inline away or get marked static too early. Of course, we don't actually need to add more worker/wrapper pairs to do this; we can fake that. On Feb 16, 2017 6:53 PM, "Simon Peyton Jones" <simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: I’m sorry I still don’t understand the problem. Can you give an example? It all works fine today; what will change in the proposed new scheme. Indeed what IS the proposed new scheme? I’m lost Simon From: David Feuer [mailto:david.fe...@gmail.com<mailto:david.fe...@gmail.com>] Sent: 16 February 2017 23:51 To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> Cc: ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>>; Reid Barton <rwbar...@gmail.com<mailto:rwbar...@gmail.com>>; Ben Gamari <bgam...@gmail.com<mailto:bgam...@gmail.com>> Subject: RE: Static data and RULES Sorry; guess I should have given more background on that. This goes back to the performance problems Ben encountered in Typeable. The goal is to avoid trying to optimize something over and over that's never ever going to change. If we know that a term is made only of static data, we can skip it altogether in simplification. Suppose we have foo = Just (Right [1]) Then no amount of optimization will ever be useful. But what about RULES? If the outermost pattern in a rule matches on a data constructor, then it's not static anymore! We may be replacing it with something else. So we need a finer mechanism. We *also* need a finer mechanism for strict constructors in general. We need to avoid inlining those too early if they're mentioned in any position in RULES. Trying to make this work right automagically looks a bit tricky in the face of orphan rules and such. On Feb 16, 2017 6:35 PM, "Simon Peyton Jones" <simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: I don’t understand any of this. However, RULES are allowed to match on data constructors and it would be nice to let that keep happening. Why won’t it keep happening? What is the problem you are trying to solve? Why does the fast-path make it harder? Maybe open a ticket? Simon From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org>] On Behalf Of David Feuer Sent: 16 February 2017 22:13 To: Ben Gamari <bgam...@gmail.com<mailto:bgam...@gmail.com>>; Reid Barton <rwbar...@gmail.com<mailto:rwbar...@gmail.com>> Cc: ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>> Subject: Static data and RULES Ben Gamari and Reid Barton are interested in making it cheaper for static data to pass through simplification. The basic idea is that if a term is already made entirely of data constructors and literals, then there's nothing left to optimize. However, RULES are allowed to match on data constructors and it would be nice to let that keep happening. But on the other hand, RULES are apparently (according to Duncan Coutts) already broken for strict data constructors, because they have workers and wrappers. My thought: let's allow phased INLINE and NOINLINE pragmas for data constructors. The default would be INLINE. The ~ phase choice would not be available: once inline, always inline. Semantics ~~~~~~~~~~ For all constructors: If a constructor is allowed by pragmas to inline in a certain phase, then in that phase terms built from it can be considered static. Once static, always static. If a constructor is not allowed to inline in a certain phase, terms built from it will be considered non-static. After demand analysis and worker/wrapper, all constructors are considered inline. For strict constructors: A strict constructor wrapper prohibited from inlining in a certain phase simply will not. Strict constructor wrappers will all be allowed to inline after demand analysis and worker/wrapper. This matches the way we now handle wrappers actually created in that phase. Syntax: For GADT syntax, this is easy: data Foo ... where {-# INLINE [1] Bar #-} Bar :: ... For traditional syntax, I think it's probably best to pull the pragmas to the top: {-# NOINLINE Quux #-} data Baz ... = Quux ... | ...
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
