I'm having trouble when it doesn't fuse—it ends up with duplicate bindings
at the top level, because build gets inlined n times, and the result lifted
out. Nothing's *wrong* with the code, except that there are multiple copies
of it.
On Aug 15, 2014 10:58 AM, "GHC" wrote:
> #9434: GHC.List.revers
Isn't this kind of thing fixed for other functions by rewriting back into
the direct recursive definition if no fusion happens?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Feuer wrote:
> I'm having trouble when it doesn't fuse—it ends up with duplicate bindings
> at the top level, because build get
Yes, but I'm not sure how to do that, especially because foldl doesn't have
the phased NOINLINE that foldr does.
On Aug 15, 2014 12:45 PM, "Dan Doel" wrote:
> Isn't this kind of thing fixed for other functions by rewriting back into
> the direct recursive definition if no fusion happens?
>
>
> On
Make foldl's inline phased, and see what happens?
Presumably the reason it doesn't have a phase limit yet is that it never
participated in any fusion before, so there was never a reason to not just
inline.
Other than that it seems like:
reverse xs
=> rewrite
build (\c n -> foldl (n
; Simon Peyton Jones
Subject: Re: [GHC] #9434: GHC.List.reverse does not fuse
I'm having trouble when it doesn't fuse—it ends up with duplicate bindings at
the top level, because build gets inlined n times, and the result lifted out.
Nothing's *wrong* with the code, except that the
plication in the first
> place, than to create and try to CSE it away. Others have suggested ways
> of doing so, following the pattern of existing RULES.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* David Feuer [mailto:david.fe...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 15 August 2014 16:41
>
