import Class
import Var
import CoreUnfold ( mkDFunUnfolding )
+-- import CoreUtils ( mkPiTypes )
import PrelNames ( inlineIdName )
import Id
import MkId
{-# RULE "op1@C[a]" forall a, d:C a.
op1 [a] (df_i d) = op1_i a d #-}
-* We want to inline the dictionary function itself as vigorously as we
- possibly can, so that we expose that dictionary constructor to
- selectors as much as poss. We don't actually inline it; rather, we
- use a Builtin RULE for the ClassOps (see MkId.mkDictSelId) to short
- circuit such applications. But the RULE only applies if it can "see"
- the dfun's DFunUnfolding.
-
+Note [Instances and loop breakers]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Note that df_i may be mutually recursive with both op1_i and op2_i.
It's crucial that df_i is not chosen as the loop breaker, even
though op1_i has a (user-specified) INLINE pragma.
a RULE (the magic ClassOp rule above), and RULES work inside InlineRule
unfoldings. See Note [RULEs enabled in SimplGently] in SimplUtils
+Note [ClassOp/DFun selection]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+One thing we see a lot is stuff like
+ op2 (df d1 d2)
+where 'op2' is a ClassOp and 'df' is DFun. Now, we could inline *both*
+'op2' and 'df' to get
+ case (MkD ($cop1 d1 d2) ($cop2 d1 d2) ... of
+ MkD _ op2 _ _ _ -> op2
+And that will reduce to ($cop2 d1 d2) which is what we wanted.
+
+But it's tricky to make this work in practice, because it requires us to
+inline both 'op2' and 'df'. But neither is keen to inline without having
+seen the other's result; and it's very easy to get code bloat (from the
+big intermediate) if you inline a bit too much.
+
+Instead we use a cunning trick.
+ * We arrange that 'df' and 'op2' NEVER inline.
+
+ * We arrange that 'df' is ALWAYS defined in the sylised form
+ df d1 d2 = MkD ($cop1 d1 d2) ($cop2 d1 d2) ...
+
+ * We give 'df' a magical unfolding (DFunUnfolding [$cop1, $cop2, ..])
+ that lists its methods.
+
+ * We make CoreUnfold.exprIsConApp_maybe spot a DFunUnfolding and return
+ a suitable constructor application -- inlining df "on the fly" as it
+ were.
+
+ * We give the ClassOp 'op2' a BuiltinRule that extracts the right piece
+ iff its argument satisfies exprIsConApp_maybe. This is done in
+ MkId mkDictSelId
+
+ * We make 'df' CONLIKE, so that shared uses stil match; eg
+ let d = df d1 d2
+ in ...(op2 d)...(op1 d)...
+
+Note [Single-method classes]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+If the class has just one method (or, more accurately, just one element
+of {superclasses + methods}), then we still use the *same* strategy
+
+ class C a where op :: a -> a
+ instance C a => C [a] where op = <blah>
+
+We translate the class decl into a newtype, which just gives
+a top-level axiom:
+
+ axiom Co:C a :: C a ~ (a->a)
+
+ op :: forall a. C a -> (a -> a)
+ op a d = d |> (Co:C a)
+
+ MkC :: forall a. (a->a) -> C a
+ MkC = /\a.\op. op |> (sym Co:C a)
+
+ df :: forall a. C a => C [a]
+ {-# NOINLINE df DFun[ $cop_list ] #-}
+ df = /\a. \d. MkD ($cop_list a d)
+
+ $cop_list :: forall a. C a => a -> a
+ $cop_list = <blah>
+
+The "constructor" MkD expands to a cast, as does the class-op selector.
+The RULE works just like for multi-field dictionaries:
+ * (df a d) returns (Just (MkD,..,[$cop_list a d]))
+ to exprIsConApp_Maybe
+
+ * The RULE for op picks the right result
+
+This is a bit of a hack, because (df a d) isn't *really* a constructor
+application. But it works just fine in this case, exprIsConApp_maybe
+is otherwise used only when we hit a case expression which will have
+a real data constructor in it.
+
+The biggest reason for doing it this way, apart form uniformity, is
+that we want to be very careful when we have
+ instance C a => C [a] where
+ {-# INLINE op #-}
+ op = ...
+then we'll get an INLINE pragma on $cop_list. The danger is that
+we'll get something like
+ foo = /\a.\d. $cop_list a d
+and then we'll eta expand, and then we'll inline TOO EARLY. This happened in
+Trac #3772 and I spent far too long fiddling arond trying to fix it.
+Look at the test for Trac #3772.
Note [Subtle interaction of recursion and overlap]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mk_app fun arg_id = L loc (HsApp fun (L loc (wrapId arg_wrapper arg_id)))
arg_wrapper = mkWpApps dfun_lam_vars <.> mkWpTyApps (mkTyVarTys inst_tyvars')
- dfun_id_w_fun = dfun_id
- `setIdUnfolding` mkDFunUnfolding dict_constr (sc_ids ++ meth_ids)
+ -- Do not inline the dfun; instead give it a magic DFunFunfolding
+ -- See Note [ClassOp/DFun selection]
+ -- See also note [Single-method classes]
+ dfun_id_w_fun = dfun_id
+ `setIdUnfolding` mkDFunUnfolding dict_constr (sc_ids ++ meth_ids)
`setInlinePragma` dfunInlinePragma
- main_bind = noLoc $ AbsBinds
- inst_tyvars'
- dfun_lam_vars
- [(inst_tyvars', dfun_id_w_fun, this_dict_id, spec_inst_prags)]
- (unitBag dict_bind)
+ main_bind = AbsBinds
+ inst_tyvars'
+ dfun_lam_vars
+ [(inst_tyvars', dfun_id_w_fun, this_dict_id, spec_inst_prags)]
+ (unitBag dict_bind)
; showLIE (text "instance")
- ; return (unitBag main_bind `unionBags`
- listToBag meth_binds `unionBags`
- listToBag sc_binds) }
+ ; return (unitBag (L loc main_bind) `unionBags`
+ listToBag meth_binds `unionBags`
+ listToBag sc_binds)
+ }
+{-
+ -- Create the result bindings
+ ; let this_dict_id = instToId this_dict
+ arg_ids = sc_ids ++ meth_ids
+ arg_binds = listToBag meth_binds `unionBags`
+ listToBag sc_binds
+
+ ; showLIE (text "instance")
+ ; case newTyConCo_maybe (classTyCon clas) of
+ Nothing -- A multi-method class
+ -> return (unitBag (L loc data_bind) `unionBags` arg_binds)
+ where
+ data_dfun_id = dfun_id -- Do not inline; instead give it a magic DFunFunfolding
+ -- See Note [ClassOp/DFun selection]
+ `setIdUnfolding` mkDFunUnfolding dict_constr arg_ids
+ `setInlinePragma` dfunInlinePragma
+
+ data_bind = AbsBinds inst_tyvars' dfun_lam_vars
+ [(inst_tyvars', data_dfun_id, this_dict_id, spec_inst_prags)]
+ (unitBag dict_bind)
+
+ dict_bind = mkVarBind this_dict_id dict_rhs
+ dict_rhs = foldl mk_app inst_constr arg_ids
+ dict_constr = classDataCon clas
+ inst_constr = L loc $ wrapId (mkWpTyApps inst_tys')
+ (dataConWrapId dict_constr)
+ -- We don't produce a binding for the dict_constr; instead we
+ -- rely on the simplifier to unfold this saturated application
+ -- We do this rather than generate an HsCon directly, because
+ -- it means that the special cases (e.g. dictionary with only one
+ -- member) are dealt with by the common MkId.mkDataConWrapId code rather
+ -- than needing to be repeated here.
+
+ mk_app :: LHsExpr Id -> Id -> LHsExpr Id
+ mk_app fun arg_id = L loc (HsApp fun (L loc (wrapId arg_wrapper arg_id)))
+ arg_wrapper = mkWpApps dfun_lam_vars <.> mkWpTyApps (mkTyVarTys inst_tyvars')
+
+ Just the_nt_co -- (Just co) for a single-method class
+ -> return (unitBag (L loc nt_bind) `unionBags` arg_binds)
+ where
+ nt_dfun_id = dfun_id -- Just let the dfun inline; see Note [Single-method classes]
+ `setInlinePragma` alwaysInlinePragma
+
+ local_nt_dfun = setIdType this_dict_id inst_ty -- A bit of a hack, but convenient
+
+ nt_bind = AbsBinds [] []
+ [([], nt_dfun_id, local_nt_dfun, spec_inst_prags)]
+ (unitBag (mkVarBind local_nt_dfun (L loc (wrapId nt_cast the_meth_id))))
+
+ the_meth_id = ASSERT( length arg_ids == 1 ) head arg_ids
+ nt_cast = WpCast $ mkPiTypes (inst_tyvars' ++ dfun_lam_vars) $
+ mkSymCoercion (mkTyConApp the_nt_co inst_tys')
+-}
------------------------------
tcSuperClass :: InstLoc -> [TyVar] -> [Inst]
isn't what the user expected
b) We use the magic 'inline' Id to ensure that $dmop1 really is
- inlined in $cop1, even though the latter itself has an INLINE pragma
+ inlined in $cop1, even though
+ (i) the latter itself has an INLINE pragma
+ (ii) $dmop1 is not saturated
That is important to allow the mutual recursion between $fooInt and
$cop1 to be broken
-This is all regrettably delicate.
-
%************************************************************************
%* *