On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 04:46:29PM +, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> I agree that this kind of backward-compatibility pattern synonym is
> good and shouldn't be prefixed with PS_.
>
> But do you have a concrete example of this leakage of an internal GHC
> type via TH? While I can imagine this hap
I agree that this kind of backward-compatibility pattern synonym is good and
shouldn't be prefixed with PS_.
But do you have a concrete example of this leakage of an internal GHC type via
TH? While I can imagine this happening, I don't know of any examples in
practice. Note that even enumeratio
PUBLIC
Ah, at least I've figured out why exactly the simplifier does this (regardless
of floating out due to full laziness or not): it is because the definition of
the default implementation of (>>) is inlined. I have (>>) defined as such:
ma >> mb = ma >>= \_ -> mb
So when the simplifier
PUBLIC
Turning on various Opt_D_dump flags, I can see that this tranformation happens
in the first iteration of the simplifier. Looking at GHC.Core.Opt.getCoreToDo,
I would guess this corresponds to this line:
-- initial simplify: mk specialiser happy: minimum effort please
runW
Hi Gergo,
Sounds like you might be better off writing your own optimisation pass
rather than relying on making GHC do what you want.
Cheers
Matt
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 9:05 AM Erdi, Gergo via ghc-devs
wrote:
>
> PUBLIC
>
> Hi Joachim,
>
> Thanks for the hints!
>
> > Hi Gergo,
> >
> > Am Diens
PUBLIC
Hi Joachim,
Thanks for the hints!
> Hi Gergo,
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 28.12.2021 um 15:57 + schrieb Erdi, Gergo via ghc-
> devs:
> > PUBLIC
>
> phew
Yeah obviously I'm sitting here not only adding these tags, but also
coming up with the automated systems and also the company policies
