On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Matthew Pickering wrote:
If there is a ticket then I can look into it next week.
Thanks! I've added it as https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20556
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
;
>
> From: Erdi, Gergo
> Sent: 19 October 2021 09:36
> To: Simon Peyton Jones ; 'Matthew Pickering'
>
> Cc: Montelatici, Raphael Laurent ; 'GHC'
>
> Subject: RE: Specialisation doesn't kick in -- NOW WITH MINIMAL WORKING
> EXAMPLE (RE: Instantiation of overloaded definit
ecialisation doesn't kick in -- NOW WITH MINIMAL WORKING EXAMPLE
(RE: Instantiation of overloaded definition *in Core*)
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
“settings”? Honestly, I have no idea. GHC looks at these files in the directory
passed to runGhc, and in my local setup I have some convoluted ghc-lib-b
WITH MINIMAL
WORKING EXAMPLE (RE: Instantiation of overloaded definition *in Core*)
Yes I have a full build. No it was not built with Hadrian. I did not realise
that your system relied not only on GHC as a library, but also on the build
system that you use to build GHC.
I guess I can try
ober 2021 09:03
To: Simon Peyton Jones ; 'Matthew Pickering'
Cc: Montelatici, Raphael Laurent ; 'GHC'
Subject: RE: Specialisation doesn't kick in -- NOW WITH MINIMAL WORKING EXAMPLE
(RE: Instantiation of overloaded definition *in Core*)
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Do you have a full GHC build there? A
al] RE: Specialisation doesn't kick in -- NOW WITH MINIMAL
WORKING EXAMPLE (RE: Instantiation of overloaded definition *in Core*)
As for opening a ticket – a big part of the problem is that I don’t even know
yet if I’m doing something wrong, or GHC is! So it’s not clear what the ticket
woul
KING EXAMPLE
(RE: Instantiation of overloaded definition *in Core*)
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Thanks for looking into this!
`Paths_ghc_lib` is referenced just because I am using GHC via ghc-lib. You can
of course instead use a local full build of GHC for the libDir. Please find an
updated version attach
: Saturday, October 16, 2021 12:52 AM
To: Erdi, Gergo ; 'Matthew Pickering'
Cc: Montelatici, Raphael Laurent ; 'GHC'
Subject: [External] RE: Specialisation doesn't kick in -- NOW WITH MINIMAL
WORKING EXAMPLE (RE: Instantiation of overloaded definition *in Core*)
I could not compile Main.hs
ck in -- NOW WITH MINIMAL WORKING EXAMPLE
(RE: Instantiation of overloaded definition *in Core*)
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
OK I now have a standalone demonstrator that shows, at least, that the default
method implementation is not specialized. With the attached input programs, the
resulting Cor
ee that specializer *is* running, it just
doesn't *do* anything.
From: Erdi, Gergo
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 4:00 PM
To: Simon Peyton Jones ; Matthew Pickering
Cc: Montelatici, Raphael Laurent ; 'GHC'
Subject: RE: Specialisation doesn't kick in (RE: Instantiation of overloaded
definition
t kick in (RE: Instantiation of
overloaded definition *in Core*)
PUBLIC
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or
click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Always report
suspicious emails using the Report As Phishing button in Outlook to p
.com.)
From: Erdi, Gergo
Sent: 11 October 2021 03:58
To: Simon Peyton Jones ; Matthew Pickering
Cc: Montelatici, Raphael Laurent ; 'GHC'
Subject: RE: Specialisation doesn't kick in (RE: Instantiation of overloaded
definition *in Core*)
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Hi Simon, Matt & others,
It t
= @m_ani $dMonad_sIi @a_ar4 @b_ar5 ma_sIj sat_sIm
From: Erdi, Gergo
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:30 AM
To: Simon Peyton Jones
Cc: Montelatici, Raphael Laurent ; GHC
Subject: RE: Specialisation doesn't kick in (RE: Instantiation of overloaded
definition *in Core*)
PUBLIC
Indeed, I am using
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Indeed, I am using 9.0.1. I'll try upgrading. Thanks!
From: Simon Peyton Jones
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 6:12 PM
To: Erdi, Gergo
Cc: Montelatici, Raphael Laurent ; GHC
Subject: [External] RE: Specialisation doesn't kick in (RE: Instantiation of
overloaded definition
.@gmail.com<mailto:simon.peytonjo...@gmail.com> instead. (For
now, it just forwards to simo...@microsoft.com.)
From: Erdi, Gergo
Sent: 06 October 2021 03:07
To: Simon Peyton Jones
Cc: Montelatici, Raphael Laurent ; GHC
Subject: Specialisation doesn't kick in (RE: Instantiation of ove
UsageDetails?
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Pickering
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:24 PM
To: Erdi, Gergo
Cc: Simon Peyton Jones ; Montelatici, Raphael Laurent
; GHC
Subject: [External] Re: Specialisation doesn't kick in (RE: Instantiation of
overloaded definition *in Core*)
I think
fApplicativeIO bindIO $fMonadIO_$c>>;
>
> $fMonadIO_$c>> [Occ=LoopBreaker]
>
> :: forall a b. IO a -> IO b -> IO b
>
> [GblId]
>
> $fMonadIO_$c>> = \ (@a) (@b) -> $dm>> @IO $fMonadIO @a @b;
>
> sat_sHr :: IO ()
>
> [LclId]
>
> sa
e simplified away.
But none of this seems to happen -- $dm>> doesn't get an IO-specific version,
and so $fMonadIO_$c>> still ends up with a dictionary-passing call to $dm>>.
Isn't this exactly the situation that the specialiser is supposed to eliminate?
Thanks,
Gerg
ytonjo...@gmail.com<mailto:simon.peytonjo...@gmail.com> instead. (For
now, it just forwards to simo...@microsoft.com.)
From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Erdi, Gergo via
ghc-devs
Sent: 04 October 2021 10:30
To: 'GHC'
Cc: Montelatici, Raphael Laurent
Subject: Instantiation of overloaded definit
PUBLIC
Hi,
I'd like to instantiate Core definitions. For example, suppose I have the
following Core definition:
foo :: forall m a b. Monad m => m a -> m b -> m b
foo = \ @m ($d :: Monad m) @a @b (ma :: m a) (mb :: m b) -> ...
Now let's say I'd like to instantiate it for m ~ IO. It is quite
20 matches
Mail list logo
