+sc_force to True when calling specLoop. This flag does three things:
+ * Ignore specConstrThreshold, to specialise functions of arbitrary size
+ (see scTopBind)
+ * Ignore specConstrCount, to make arbitrary numbers of specialisations
+ (see specialise)
+ * Specialise even for arguments that are not scrutinised in the loop
+ (see argToPat; Trac #4488)
+
+This flag is inherited for nested non-recursive bindings (which are likely to
+be join points and hence should be fully specialised) but reset for nested
+recursive bindings.
+
+What alternatives did I consider? Annotating the loop itself doesn't
+work because (a) it is local and (b) it will be w/w'ed and I having
+w/w propagating annotation somehow doesn't seem like a good idea. The
+types of the loop arguments really seem to be the most persistent
+thing.
+
+Annotating the types that make up the loop state doesn't work,
+either, because (a) it would prevent us from using types like Either
+or tuples here, (b) we don't want to restrict the set of types that
+can be used in Stream states and (c) some types are fixed by the user
+(e.g., the accumulator here) but we still want to specialise as much
+as possible.
+
+ForceSpecConstr is done by way of an annotation:
+ data SPEC = SPEC | SPEC2
+ {-# ANN type SPEC ForceSpecConstr #-}
+But SPEC is the *only* type so annotated, so it'd be better to
+use a particular library type.
+
+Alternatives to ForceSpecConstr
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Instead of giving the loop an extra argument of type SPEC, we
+also considered *wrapping* arguments in SPEC, thus
+ data SPEC a = SPEC a | SPEC2
+
+ loop = \arg -> case arg of
+ SPEC state ->
+ case state of (x,y) -> ... loop (SPEC (x',y')) ...
+ S2 -> error ...
+The idea is that a SPEC argument says "specialise this argument
+regardless of whether the function case-analyses it. But this
+doesn't work well:
+ * SPEC must still be a sum type, else the strictness analyser
+ eliminates it
+ * But that means that 'loop' won't be strict in its real payload
+This loss of strictness in turn screws up specialisation, because
+we may end up with calls like
+ loop (SPEC (case z of (p,q) -> (q,p)))
+Without the SPEC, if 'loop' was strict, the case would move out
+and we'd see loop applied to a pair. But if 'loop' isn' strict
+this doesn't look like a specialisable call.
+
+Note [NoSpecConstr]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+The ignoreDataCon stuff allows you to say
+ {-# ANN type T NoSpecConstr #-}
+to mean "don't specialise on arguments of this type. It was added
+before we had ForceSpecConstr. Lacking ForceSpecConstr we specialised
+regardless of size; and then we needed a way to turn that *off*. Now
+that we have ForceSpecConstr, this NoSpecConstr is probably redundant.
+(Used only for PArray.)
projects / ghc-hetmet.git / blobdiff