On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 16:05 -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote: > Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > > It's very difficult to get inlining right all the time. Even for a > > function marked INLINE, there's really no point in inlining in some > > contexts. E.g. > > map f xs > > (don't inline f). > > Would it make sense to tentatively inline anyway, and in a later stage, > if that bit of code is still equivalent to a call to f (i.e., no > optimizations have taken advantage of it), replace it with a reference to f?
Not really because, so long as it remains in the form of map f xs we can always choose to inline map whenever it later looks like it might be beneficial (eg when we know something about f or xs). Also, uninlining is nigh on impossible. Duncan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
