+Note [Specialising a recursive group]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Consider
+ let rec { f x = ...g x'...
+ ; g y = ...f y'.... }
+ in f 'a'
+Here we specialise 'f' at Char; but that is very likely to lead to
+a specialisation of 'g' at Char. We must do the latter, else the
+whole point of specialisation is lost.
+
+But we do not want to keep iterating to a fixpoint, because in the
+presence of polymorphic recursion we might generate an infinite number
+of specialisations.
+
+So we use the following heuristic:
+ * Arrange the rec block in dependency order, so far as possible
+ (the occurrence analyser already does this)
+
+ * Specialise it much like a sequence of lets
+
+ * Then go through the block a second time, feeding call-info from
+ the RHSs back in the bottom, as it were
+
+In effect, the ordering maxmimises the effectiveness of each sweep,
+and we do just two sweeps. This should catch almost every case of
+monomorphic recursion -- the exception could be a very knotted-up
+recursion with multiple cycles tied up together.
+
+This plan is implemented in the Rec case of specBindItself.
+
+Note [Specialisations already covered]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+We obviously don't want to generate two specialisations for the same
+argument pattern. There are two wrinkles
+
+1. We do the already-covered test in specDefn, not when we generate
+the CallInfo in mkCallUDs. We used to test in the latter place, but
+we now iterate the specialiser somewhat, and the Id at the call site
+might therefore not have all the RULES that we can see in specDefn
+
+2. What about two specialisations where the second is an *instance*
+of the first? If the more specific one shows up first, we'll generate
+specialisations for both. If the *less* specific one shows up first,
+we *don't* currently generate a specialisation for the more specific
+one. (See the call to lookupRule in already_covered.) Reasons:
+ (a) lookupRule doesn't say which matches are exact (bad reason)
+ (b) if the earlier specialisation is user-provided, it's
+ far from clear that we should auto-specialise further
+
+Note [Auto-specialisation and RULES]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Consider:
+ g :: Num a => a -> a
+ g = ...
+
+ f :: (Int -> Int) -> Int
+ f w = ...
+ {-# RULE f g = 0 #-}
+
+Suppose that auto-specialisation makes a specialised version of
+g::Int->Int That version won't appear in the LHS of the RULE for f.
+So if the specialisation rule fires too early, the rule for f may
+never fire.
+
+It might be possible to add new rules, to "complete" the rewrite system.
+Thus when adding
+ RULE forall d. g Int d = g_spec
+also add
+ RULE f g_spec = 0
+
+But that's a bit complicated. For now we ask the programmer's help,
+by *copying the INLINE activation pragma* to the auto-specialised rule.
+So if g says {-# NOINLINE[2] g #-}, then the auto-spec rule will also
+not be active until phase 2.
+
+
projects / ghc-hetmet.git / blobdiff