Yes, all the inlining you expect should indeed happen. If
it doesn't can you show us an example?
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Manuel M. T. Chakravarty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 11 December 2000 13:41
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Transitive inlining
|
|
| In the context of the array library, we stumbled over
| another problem. Does GHC transitive inlining across
| modules? Let's say, we have the following scenario:
|
| module B (foo) where
|
| {-# INLINE foo #-}
| foo .. = ...bar...
|
| {-# INLINE bar #-}
| bar .. = ...
|
|
| module L (baz) where
|
| import B
|
| {#- INLINE baz #-}
| baz .. = ...B.foo...
|
|
| module Main where
|
| import L
|
| main .. = ...L.baz...
|
| GHC in this case inlines the whole expression "...B.foo..."
| in `Main', but will it inline the right hand side of `B.bar'
| in `Main' (or even of `B.foo')? If the INLINE pragma is
| transitive across modules boundaries, one would hope so.
|
| It seems that GHC is not (always?) doing this inlining,
| which already for a very simple benchmark costs us a factor
| of 5 runtime! (With inlining - enforced by copying
| definitions manually into `Main' - the code produced by GHC
| is actually a little bit faster than the code for the
| corresponding C program).
|
| Cheers,
| Manuel
|
| PS: I had problems building GHCi and it seems as if my
| message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't get through
| somehow...
|
| _______________________________________________
| Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
|
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
