+Note [Escaping a value lambda]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+We want to float even cheap expressions out of value lambdas,
+because that saves allocation. Consider
+ f = \x. .. (\y.e) ...
+Then we'd like to avoid allocating the (\y.e) every time we call f,
+(assuming e does not mention x).
+
+An example where this really makes a difference is simplrun009.
+
+Another reason it's good is because it makes SpecContr fire on functions.
+Consider
+ f = \x. ....(f (\y.e))....
+After floating we get
+ lvl = \y.e
+ f = \x. ....(f lvl)...
+and that is much easier for SpecConstr to generate a robust specialisation for.
+
+The OLD CODE (given where this Note is referred to) prevents floating
+of the example above, so I just don't understand the old code. I
+don't understand the old comment either (which appears below). I
+measured the effect on nofib of changing OLD CODE to 'True', and got
+zeros everywhere, but a 4% win for 'puzzle'. Very small 0.5% loss for
+'cse'; turns out to be because our arity analysis isn't good enough
+yet (mentioned in Simon-nofib-notes).
+
+OLD comment was:
+ Even if it escapes a value lambda, we only
+ float if it's not cheap (unless it'll get all the
+ way to the top). I've seen cases where we
+ float dozens of tiny free expressions, which cost
+ more to allocate than to evaluate.
+ NB: exprIsCheap is also true of bottom expressions, which
+ is good; we don't want to share them
+
+ It's only Really Bad to float a cheap expression out of a
+ strict context, because that builds a thunk that otherwise
+ would never be built. So another alternative would be to
+ add
+ || (strict_ctxt && not (exprIsBottom expr))
+ to the condition above. We should really try this out.
+