- add unfolding [this is the only place we add an unfolding]
add arity
+
+
+
+Right hand sides and arguments
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+In many ways we want to treat
+ (a) the right hand side of a let(rec), and
+ (b) a function argument
+in the same way. But not always! In particular, we would
+like to leave these arguments exactly as they are, so they
+will match a RULE more easily.
+
+ f (g x, h x)
+ g (+ x)
+
+It's harder to make the rule match if we ANF-ise the constructor,
+or eta-expand the PAP:
+
+ f (let { a = g x; b = h x } in (a,b))
+ g (\y. + x y)
+
+On the other hand if we see the let-defns
+
+ p = (g x, h x)
+ q = + x
+
+then we *do* want to ANF-ise and eta-expand, so that p and q
+can be safely inlined.
+
+Even floating lets out is a bit dubious. For let RHS's we float lets
+out if that exposes a value, so that the value can be inlined more vigorously.
+For example
+
+ r = let x = e in (x,x)
+
+Here, if we float the let out we'll expose a nice constructor. We did experiments
+that showed this to be a generally good thing. But it was a bad thing to float
+lets out unconditionally, because that meant they got allocated more often.
+
+For function arguments, there's less reason to expose a constructor (it won't
+get inlined). Just possibly it might make a rule match, but I'm pretty skeptical.
+So for the moment we don't float lets out of function arguments either.
+
+
+Eta expansion
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+For eta expansion, we want to catch things like
+
+ case e of (a,b) -> \x -> case a of (p,q) -> \y -> r
+
+If the \x was on the RHS of a let, we'd eta expand to bring the two
+lambdas together. And in general that's a good thing to do. Perhaps
+we should eta expand wherever we find a (value) lambda? Then the eta
+expansion at a let RHS can concentrate solely on the PAP case.
projects / ghc-hetmet.git / blobdiff