~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We avoid infinite inlinings by choosing loop breakers, and
ensuring that a loop breaker cuts each loop. But what is a
- "loop"? In particular, a RULES is like an equation for 'f' that
- is *always* inlined if it are applicable. We do *not* disable
+ "loop"? In particular, a RULE is like an equation for 'f' that
+ is *always* inlined if it is applicable. We do *not* disable
rules for loop-breakers. It's up to whoever makes the rules to
make sure that the rules themselves alwasys terminate. See Note
[Rules for recursive functions] in Simplify.lhs
* Note [Rule dependency info]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The VarSet in a SpecInfo is used for dependency analysis in the
- occurrence analyser. We must track free vars in *both* lhs and rhs. Why both?
- Consider
+ occurrence analyser. We must track free vars in *both* lhs and rhs.
+ Hence use of idRuleVars, rather than idRuleRhsVars in addRuleUsage.
+ Why both? Consider
x = y
RULE f x = 4
Then if we substitute y for x, we'd better do so in the
-- bad choice for loop breaker
| is_con_app rhs = 3 -- Data types help with cases
- -- Note [conapp]
+ -- Note [Constructor applictions]
-- If an Id is marked "never inline" then it makes a great loop breaker
-- The only reason for not checking that here is that it is rare
is_con_app _ = False
makeLoopBreaker :: Bool -> Id -> Id
--- Set the loop-breaker flag
--- See Note [Weak loop breakers]
+-- Set the loop-breaker flag: see Note [Weak loop breakers]
makeLoopBreaker weak bndr = setIdOccInfo bndr (IAmALoopBreaker weak)
\end{code}
-Note [Worker inline loop]
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Never choose a wrapper as the loop breaker! Because
-wrappers get auto-generated inlinings when importing, and
-that can lead to an infinite inlining loop. For example:
+Note [INLINE pragmas]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Never choose a function with an INLINE pramga as the loop breaker!
+If such a function is mutually-recursive with a non-INLINE thing,
+then the latter should be the loop-breaker.
+
+A particular case is wrappers generated by the demand analyser.
+If you make then into a loop breaker you may get an infinite
+inlining loop. For example:
rec {
$wfoo x = ....foo x....
{-loop brk-} foo x = ...$wfoo x...
}
-
The interface file sees the unfolding for $wfoo, and sees that foo is
strict (and hence it gets an auto-generated wrapper). Result: an
infinite inlining in the importing scope. So be a bit careful if you
breaker then compiling Game.hs goes into an infinite loop (this
happened when we gave is_con_app a lower score than inline candidates).
+Note [Constructor applications]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+It's really really important to inline dictionaries. Real
+example (the Enum Ordering instance from GHC.Base):
+
+ rec f = \ x -> case d of (p,q,r) -> p x
+ g = \ x -> case d of (p,q,r) -> q x
+ d = (v, f, g)
+
+Here, f and g occur just once; but we can't inline them into d.
+On the other hand we *could* simplify those case expressions if
+we didn't stupidly choose d as the loop breaker.
+But we won't because constructor args are marked "Many".
+Inlining dictionaries is really essential to unravelling
+the loops in static numeric dictionaries, see GHC.Float.
+
Note [Closure conversion]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We treat (\x. C p q) as a high-score candidate in the letrec scoring algorithm.
-- Add the usage from RULES in Id to the usage
addRuleUsage usage id
= foldVarSet add usage (idRuleVars id)
+ -- idRuleVars here: see Note [Rule dependency info]
where
- add v u = addOneOcc u v NoOccInfo -- Give a non-committal binder info
- -- (i.e manyOcc) because many copies
- -- of the specialised thing can appear
+ add v u = addOneOcc u v NoOccInfo
+ -- Give a non-committal binder info (i.e manyOcc) because
+ -- a) Many copies of the specialised thing can appear
+ -- b) We don't want to substitute a BIG expression inside a RULE
+ -- even if that's the only occurrence of the thing
+ -- (Same goes for INLINE.)
\end{code}
Expressions