On 2009 Mar 9, at 9:32, Claus Reinke wrote:
One way out would be to treat the whole mutual recursion as a single
entity, either implicitly, as I indicated, or explicitly, as I
interpret Brandon's somewhat ambiguous comment. In other words, the
peel/unroll limits would apply to a whole group
2009/3/9 Claus Reinke :
But if you annotate all your unrolled and peeled new definitions as
> NOINLINE, do you still get the optimizations you want? There are probably a
> few GHC optimizations that can "look through" non-recursive
> lets, but RULES are not among those.
The benefit that comes imm
let f = ..f.. in f{n,m} -PEEL-> let f = ..f.. in ..f{n-1,m}..
Probably what you intend here is that you create one copy of the
definition every round rather than one per call site, is that right?
I don't think so - ultimately, the point of both peeling and unrolling is to
unfold a definition
I think there might be a difference between C/GHC and the Haskell Standard's
idea of the range of the exponential. Specifically, the comment in gcc's
float.h (i.e., where GHC appears to gets its definition from) says
/* Minimum int x such that FLT_RADIX**(x-1) is a normalized float, emin */
wh
2009/3/9 Claus Reinke :
>>> let f = ..f.. in f{n,m} -PEEL-> let f = ..f.. in ..f{n-1,m}..
>
>> Probably what you intend here is that you create one copy of the
>> definition every round rather than one per call site, is that right?
>
> I don't think so - ultimately, the point of both peeling and un
On Monday 09 March 2009 11:56:14 am Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> For what it's worth, here's why. Suppose we have
>
> type family N a :: *
>
> f :: forall a. N a -> Int
> f =
>
> g :: forall b. N b -> Int
> g x = 1 + f x
>
> The defn of 'g' fails with a very
On 2009-03-09, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2009-03-09, John Meacham wrote:
>> perhaps the most recent non-cabalized ghc build might be worth a try. I
>> think darcs still compiles with ghc 6.6, but am not positive.,
>
> Mingw-bootstrap, source, or both?
Tried with both. Got:
ghc.exe: unkno
Dan's example fails thus:
| Map.hs:25:19:
| Couldn't match expected type `Nest n1 f b'
|against inferred type `Nest n1 f1 b'
| In the expression: fmap (deepFMap n f)
| In the definition of `deepFMap':
| deepFMap (S n) f = fmap (deepFMap n f)
|
| for reasons I don'
Claus Reinke wrote:
That was one of my questions in the optimization and rewrite rules
thread: shouldn't -fvia-C be supported (as a non-default option)
for at least as long as the alternative isn't a clear win in all cases?
The trouble with supporting multiple backends is that the cost in
term
{-# INLINE f PEEL n #-}
inline calls *into* recursive f (called loop peeling for loops)
{-# INLINE f UNROLL m #-}
inline recursive calls to f *inside* f (called loop unrolling for
loops)
{-# INLINE f PEEL n UNROLL m #-}
combine the previous two
The problem here is that this only works
let f = ..f.. in f{n,m} -PEEL-> let f = ..f.. in ..f{n-1,m}..
Probably what you intend here is that you create one copy of the
definition every round rather than one per call site, is that right?
I don't think so - ultimately, the point of both peeling and unrolling
is to unfold a definition
On 2009-03-09, John Meacham wrote:
> perhaps the most recent non-cabalized ghc build might be worth a try. I
> think darcs still compiles with ghc 6.6, but am not positive.,
Mingw-bootstrap, source, or both?
> remember ghc working on cygwin at some point. I have been in a similar
> position in
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 12:29 +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> I want a _real_ cygwin version of darcs. The non-deterministic
> pseudo-cygwin *nix/Windows hybrid currently available has just
> too many problems integrating into cygwin, that I want to use as
> my TeXing and minor coding environment. A
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 11:46:07PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> No:
>
> Configuring extensible-exceptions-0.1.0.0...
> cabal-bin.exe: Cannot find the program 'ghc' at
> '/c/bin/ghc-6.10.1.20090308/bin/ghc' or on the path
>
> 'ldd libraries/cabal-bin.exe' finds no cygwin dependencies
Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2009-03-08, John Meacham wrote:
if you follow those steps, but then don't override the host in the
./configure step to just let it pick up the cygwin environment will it
work properly?
John
No:
Configuring extensible-exceptions-0.1.0.0...
cabal-bin.e
Peter Hercek wrote:
Hi GHCi users,
I would like to be able to redefine the built-in GHCi commands. The idea
is that when searching for a command the user defined commands would be
searched first and only then the built-in commands would be searched. If
user wants to invoke a built-in command
I'm trying to use Debug.Trace to debug some tree-walking that I've
written.
It seems to me that I am missing some traces on intermediate function
calls. I guess that ghc is re-arranging the code in such a way that
some of these intermediate calls disappear. Anyway of stopping this? I
already speci
2009/3/9 Roman Leshchinskiy :
> The problem here is that this only works for directly recursive functions
> which I, for instance, don't normally use in high-performance code. Most of
> my loops are pipelines of collective combinators like map, filter, fold etc.
> because these are the ones that ca
Hi
I have filed bug http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3081 to
track this issue, marking it as effecting Windows only.
Thanks
Neil
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Philip K.F. Hölzenspies
wrote:
> On Friday 27 February 2009 09:39:14 Neil Mitchell wrote:
>> It looks like you are running
19 matches
Mail list logo
