1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
|
Ordering the compiler's passes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Change notes
~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Nov 94 * NB: if float-out is done after strictness, remember to
switch off demandedness flags on floated bindings!
13 Oct 94 * Run Float Inwards once more after strictness-simplify [andre]
4 Oct 94 * Do simplification between float-in and strictness [andre]
* Ignore-inline-pragmas flag for final simplification [andre]
Aug 94 Original: Simon, Andy, Andre
This ordering obeys all the constraints except (5)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
full laziness
simplify with foldr/build
float-in
simplify
strictness
float-in
[check FFT2 still gets benefits with this ordering]
=================================
Constraints
=================================
1. float-in before strictness.
Reason: floating inwards moves definitions inwards to a site at which
the binding might well be strict.
Example let x = ... in
y = x+1
in
...
===>
let y = let x = ... in x+1
in ...
The strictness analyser will do a better job of the latter
than the former.
2. Don't simplify between float-in and strictness,
unless you disable float-let-out-of-let, otherwise
the simiplifier's local floating might undo some
useful floating-in.
Example let f = let y = .. in \x-> x+y
in ...
===>
let y = ...
f = \x -> x+y
in ...
This is a bad move, because now y isn't strict.
In the pre-float case, the binding for y is strict.
Mind you, this isn't a very common case, and
it's easy to disable float-let-from-let.
3. Want full-laziness before foldr/build.
Reason: Give priority to sharing rather than deforestation.
Example \z -> let xs = build g
in foldr k z xs
===>
let xs = build g
in \x -> foldr k z xs
In the post-full-laziness case, xs is shared between all
applications of the function. If we did foldr/build
first, we'd have got
\z -> g k z
and now we can't share xs.
4. Want strictness after foldr/build.
Reason: foldr/build makes new function definitions which
can benefit from strictness analysis.
Example: sum [1..10]
===> (f/b)
let g x a | x > 10 = a
| otherwise = g (x+1) (a+x)
Here we clearly want to get strictness analysis on g.
5. Want full laziness after strictness
Reason: absence may allow something to be floated out
which would not otherwise be.
Example \z -> let x = f (a,z) in ...
===> (absence anal + inline wrapper of f)
\z -> let x = f.wrk a in ...
===> (full laziness)
let x= f.wrk a in \z -> ...
TOO BAD. This doesn't look a common case to me.
6. Want float-in after foldr/build.
Reason: Desugaring list comprehensions + foldr/build
gives rise to new float-in opportunities.
Example ...some list comp...
==> (foldr/build)
let v = h xs in
case ... of
[] -> v
(y:ys) -> ...(t v)...
==> (simplifier)
let v = h xs in
case ... of
[] -> h xs
(y:ys) -> ...(t v)...
Now v could usefully be floated into the second branch.
7. Want simplify after float-inwards.
[Occurred in the prelude, compiling ITup2.hs, function dfun.Ord.(*,*)]
This is due to the following (that happens with dictionaries):
let a1 = case v of (a,b) -> a
in let m1 = \ c -> case c of I# c# -> case c# of 1 -> a1 5
2 -> 6
in let m2 = \ c -> case c of I# c# ->
case c# +# 1# of cc# -> let cc = I# cc#
in m1 cc
in (m1,m2)
floating inwards will push the definition of a1 into m1 (supposing
it is only used there):
in let m1 = let a1 = case v of (a,b) -> a
in \ c -> case c of I# c# -> case c# of 1 -> a1 5
2 -> 6
in let m2 = \ c -> case c of I# c# ->
case c# +# 1# of cc# -> let cc = I# cc#
in m1 cc
in (m1,m2)
if we do strictness analysis now we will not get a worker-wrapper
for m1, because of the "let a1 ..." (notice that a1 is not strict in
its body).
Not having this worker wrapper might be very bad, because it might
mean that we will have to rebox arguments to m1 if they are
already unboxed, generating extra allocations, as occurs with m2 (cc)
above.
To solve this problem we have decided to run the simplifier after
float-inwards, so that lets whose body is a HNF are floated out,
undoing the float-inwards transformation in these cases.
We are then back to the original code, which would have a worker-wrapper
for m1 after strictness analysis and would avoid the extra let in m2.
What we lose in this case are the opportunities for case-floating
that could be presented if, for example, a1 would indeed be demanded (strict)
after the floating inwards.
The only way of having the best of both is if we have the worker/wrapper
pass explicitly called, and then we could do with
float-in
strictness analysis
simplify
strictness analysis
worker-wrapper generation
as we would
a) be able to detect the strictness of m1 after the
first call to the strictness analyser, and exploit it with the simplifier
(in case it was strict).
b) after the call to the simplifier (if m1 was not demanded)
it would be floated out just like we currently do, before stricness
analysis II and worker/wrapperisation.
The reason to not do worker/wrapperisation twice is to avoid
generating wrappers for wrappers which could happen.
8. If full laziness is ever done after strictness, remember to switch off
demandedness flags on floated bindings! This isn't done at the moment.
Ignore-inline-pragmas flag for final simplification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Occurred in the prelude, compiling ITup2.hs, function dfun.Ord.(*,*)]
Sometimes (e.g. in dictionary methods) we generate
worker/wrappers for functions but the wrappers are never
inlined. In dictionaries we often have
dict = let f1 = ...
f2 = ...
...
in (f1,f2,...)
and if we create worker/wrappers for f1,...,fn the wrappers will not
be inlined anywhere, and we will have ended up with extra
closures (one for the worker and one for the wrapper) and extra
function calls, as when we access the dictionary we will be acessing
the wrapper, which will call the worker.
The simplifier never inlines workers into wrappers, as the wrappers
themselves have INLINE pragmas attached to them (so that they are always
inlined, and we do not know in advance how many times they will be inlined).
To solve this problem, in the last call to the simplifier we will
ignore these inline pragmas and handle the workers and the wrappers
as normal definitions. This will allow a worker to be inlined into
the wrapper if it satisfies all the criteria for inlining (e.g. it is
the only occurrence of the worker etc.).
Run Float Inwards once more after strictness-simplify
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Occurred in the prelude, compiling IInt.hs, function const.Int.index.wrk]
When workers are generated after strictness analysis (worker/wrapper),
we generate them with "reboxing" lets, that simply reboxes the unboxed
arguments, as it may be the case that the worker will need the
original boxed value:
f x y = case x of
(a,b) -> case y of
(c,d) -> case a == c of
True -> (x,x)
False -> ((1,1),(2,2))
==> (worker/wrapper)
f_wrapper x y = case x of
(a,b) -> case y of
(c,d) -> f_worker a b c d
f_worker a b c d = let x = (a,b)
y = (c,d)
in case a == c of
True -> (x,x)
False -> ((1,1),(2,2))
in this case the simplifier will remove the binding for y
as it is not used (we expected this to happen very often, but we do
not know how many "reboxers" are eventually removed and how many are
kept), and will keep the binding for x.
But notice that x is only used in *one* of the branches in the case,
but is always being allocated! The floating inwards pass would push
its definition into the True branch.
A similar benefit occurs if it is only used inside a let definition.
These are basically the advantages of floating inwards, but they are
only exposed after the S.A./worker-wrapperisation of the code!
As we also have reasons to float inwards before S.A. we have to run it twice.
|
