On this page we describe the principles behind the implementation of the linear types extension as described at LinearTypes.
The current implementation can be reviewed on Phabricator. There is also a GitHub repository which contains the history of the project and a list of known issues.
Authors or the implementation are:
 Krzysztof Gogolewski
 Matthew Pickering
 Arnaud Spiwack
The implementation is supported by a document formalising (a simplified version) of linear core. This is more complete than the paper. It is work in progress.
Very highlevel summary
The linear types branch adds a new extension XLinearTypes
. This allows programs to use the linear arrow a >. b
and the multiplicitypolymorphic arrow a >.(m) b
, where m
is any type which belongs to the new Multiplicity kind, with two types One
and Omega
. The linear arrow ⊸
is available when compiling with XUnicodeSyntax
. The final syntax is not decided yet and subject to change.
Example:
id :: a >.(One) a  or: id :: a >. a id x = x
is the linear identity function.
The syntax is all temporary.
funTyCon and unrestrictedFunTyCon
In the GHC, prior to linear types, funTyCon
is the (>)
type, of kind forall {a b :: RuntimeRep}. TYPE a > TYPE b > Type
.
In the linear types branch, funTyCon
refers to a new primitive type called FUN
, of kind forall (m :: Multiplicity) > forall {a b :: RuntimeRep}. TYPE a > TYPE b > Type
. The (>)
arrow is represented by unrestrictedFunTyCon
and is a type synonym for FUN 'Omega
. Note that the kind of (>)
stays the same. (>)
is moved from TysPrim
to TysWiredIn
.
There is no (>.)
(linear arrow) type constructor yet. It will eventually be defined as a type synonym in TysWiredIn
like (>)
.
The additional multiplicity parameter to funTyCon
is the main principle behind the implementation. The rest of the implementation is essentially correctly propagating and calculating linearity information whenever a FunTy
is created.
The data type for multiplicities is defined in compiler/basicTypes/Multiplicity.hs
and is called Mult
.
In binders, where we stored a type, we now store a pair of type and multiplicity. This is achieved with data type Scaled
which stores a type together with a multiplicity (it's a convention similar to Located
for storing source locations).
Frontend
Typechecking
The internal representation of a multiplicity is called Mult
. Its (slightly simplified) definition is as follows:
data Mult = One  Omega  MultAdd Mult Mult  MultMul Mult Mult  MultThing Type
Each constructor represents how many times a variable is allowed to be used.
The checking algorithm is as follows:
 The typechecking monad is enriched with an extra writerlike state called the usage environment, which is a mapping from variables to multiplicities. Variables not present in the usage environment are considered to have usage Zero (which is not a multiplicity).
 The usage environment output by
u v
isU1 + p * U2
whereU1
is the usage environment output byu
U2
is the usage environment output byv
u :: _ >.(p) _
 Adding a new variable
x
with multiplicityp
to the context to typechecku
is performed asx
is added to the contextu
is typechecked in that context The usage
q
ofx
is retrieved from the output usage environment  It is checked that
q <= p
x
is removed from the output usage environment
Concretely, there are precisely two places where we check how often variables are used.
 In
TcEnv.tc_extend_local_env
, which is the function which brings local variables into scope. Upon exiting a binder, we calltcSubMult
(viacheck_binder
) to ensure that the variable usage is compatible with the declared multiplicity (if no multiplicity was declared, a fresh existential multiplicity variable is created instead).tcSubMult
emits constraints of the formπ ⩽ ρ
. Incheck_binder
there is a call tosubmultMaybe
which checks for obvious cases before we delegate totcSubMult
which decomposes multiplication and addition constraints
before calling
tcEqMult
in order to check for precise equality of types. This function will also do unification of variables.
 In
tc_sub_type_ds
, In theFunTy
case, we unify the arrow multiplicity which can lead to the unification of multiplicity variables.tc_sub_type_ds
emits constraints of the formπ = ρ
, this is achieved by a call totcEqMult
which just callsrigToType
on theRig
s before checking for equality usingtc_sub_type_ds
recursively.
A better implementation would probably emit a real constraint pi <= rho
and then add logic for solving it to the constraint solver. The current adhoc approach reduces the task of checking the relation to checking certain equality constraints.
In order to use the normal unification machinery, we eventually call tc_sub_type_ds
but before that we check for domain specific rules we want to implement such as 1 <= p
which is achieved by calls to submult
or submultMaybe
.
Solving constraints
Constraint solving is not completely designed yet. The current implementation follows very simple rules, to get the implementation off the ground. Basically both equality and subsumption constraints are treated as syntactic equality unification (as opposed, in particular, to unification up to laws of multiplicities as in the proposal). There are few other rules (described below) which are necessary to type even simple linear programs:
The 1 <= p rule
Given the current domain, it is true that 1
is the smallest element. As such, we assume 1
is smaller than everything which allows more functions to type check.
This is implemented by making sure to call submult
on the multiplicities before passing them to the normal unifier which knows nothing special about multiplicities. This can be seen at both
tc_extend_local_env
and tc_sub_type_ds
. At the moment we also get much better error messages by doing this short circuiting.
Complex constraints
Multiplication and addition are approximated.
 A constraint of the form
p1 * p2 <= q
is solved asp1 <= q
andp2 <= q
.  A constraint of the form
p1 + p2 <= q
is solved asOmega <= q
Defaulting
Unsolved multiplicity variables are defaulted to ω by the following functions:
Calls to isMultiplicityVar
are used in places where we do defaulting.
TcSimplify.defaultTyVarTcS
TcMType.defaultTyVar
HsType
We need to distinguish a > b
, a >. b
and a >.(m) b
in the surface syntax. The HsFunTy
constructor has an extra field containing HsArrow
, which stores this information:
data HsArrow pass = HsUnrestrictedArrow  ^ a > b  HsLinearArrow  ^ a >. b  HsExplicitMult (LHsType pass)  ^ a >.(m) b (very much including `a >.(Omega) b`! This is how the  programmer wrote it). It is stored as an `HsType` so as to preserve the  syntax as written in the program.
Data Constructors are polymorphic
A key part of the original proposal was the type of data constructors was linear.
(,) :: a >. b >. (a, b)
They were then automatically ηexpanded automatically when needed to be used as unrestricted types. That is
( (,) :: a > b > (a, b))
would typecheck because it would be elaborated into \x y > (x, y)
, which can be given the type a > b > (a, b)
.
However, besides the fact that overeager ηexpansion is undesirable (it is not perfectly preserving: undefined `seq` True
loops, while (\x > undefined x) `seq` True
terminates, it also runs contrary to the plans on polymorphism), it was found to be also insufficient for backwards compatibility. Below are two examples of perfectly good Haskell code which would start failing with this strategy.
Example 1
foo :: Identity (a > b) > a > b foo = unIdentity foo (Identity Just)
The last line doesn’t type check because foo expects an `Identity (a
> b) but
Identity Just is inferred to have type
Identity (a ⊸
b)`. The limited subtyping doesn’t handle this case. In a perfect
world, Identity Just
would have been elaborated to `Identity (\x >
Just x) :: Identity (a > b)`, but at the time where the application
Identity
Just was typechecked, it was not known that Just should
be cast to an unrestricted arrow type.
Example 2
The second problem is much more obvious in retrospect: there are typeclasses defined on (>), and they can fail to apply when using linear function.
import Control.Category Just . Just  fails
The latter fails because there are no Category
instance of (⊸)
. In
the case of Category
, we can write an instance, but it’s not
necessarily the case that an instance for (>)
will have a
corresponding instance for (⊸)
. Anyway, even if we have a Category
instance for (⊸)
, it is not clear what expression will typecheck:
probably, one of the following will fail
import Control.Category (Just :: _ > _) . Just Just . (Just :: _ > _)
Polymorphic Constructors
Simon suggested a solution to these problems. To make the type of linear data constructors polymorphic, when they are used as terms (their type stays linear when they are used in patterns).
(,) :: forall (p :: Multiplicity) (q :: Multiplicity). a >.(p) b >.(q) > (a, b)
Currently simplified as having a single multiplicity variable for the sake of a simpler implementation
(,) :: forall (p :: Multiplicity). a >.(p) b >.(p) > (a, b)
We never infer multiplicity polymorphic arrows (like levity polymorphism). Any type variables which get to the top level are default to Omega
. Thus, in most cases the multiplicity argument is defaulted to Omega
or forced to be Omega
by unification.
Implementation
The way this is implemented is that every data constructor is given a wrapper with very few exceptions (sole exceptions: levity polymorphic constructors (i.e. unboxed tuple and unboxed sum constructors) because they cannot have wrappers due to the levitypolymorphism restriction, and dictionary constructor because they don't exist in the surface syntax).
Even internally used data types have wrappers for the moment which makes the treatment quite uniform. The most significant challenge of this endeavour was giving builtin data types wrappers as previously none of them had wrappers. This led to the refactoring of mkDataConRep
and the
introduction of mkDataConRepSimple
which is a pure, simpler version of mkDataConRep
.
Once everything has a wrapper, you have to be quite careful with the difference between dataConWrapId
and dataConWorkId
. There were a few places where this used to work
by accident as they were the same thing for builtin types.
In particular, functions like exprConApp_maybe
are fragile and I (Matthew) spent a while looking there.
Other uses can be found by grepping for omegaDataConTy
(there are very few of these left, as most of them pertained to typeclass dictionaries which we reverted to have no wrapper). There are probably places where they can be removed by using dataConWorkId
rather than dataConWrapId
. The desugaring of ConLikeOut
uses dataConWrapId
though so anything in source syntax should apply the extra argument.
As another note, be warned that the serialisation for inbuilt tuples is different from normal data constructors. I didn't know this until I printed out the uniques  ad397aa99be3aa1f46520953cb195b97e4cfaabf
Otherwise, the implementation followed much the same path as levity polymorphism.
As part of this implementation dataConUserTy
has been change to reflect the extra multiplicity parameter of data constructors. However, this may have been a mistake. I (aspiwack) am beginning to think that dataConUserTy
should stay astheusertype it, and the type of the wrapper should be a different type. I suspect this choice to be involved in [a printing issue https://github.com/tweag/ghc/issues/243].
Rules and Wrappers
Giving data constructors wrappers makes RULES mentioning data constructors not work as well. Mentioning a data constructor in a RULE currently means the wrapper, which is often inlined without hesitation and hence means that rule will not fire at a later point. We solve this by inlining the wrapper late (in phase 0); see #15840 and https://phabricator.haskell.org/D5400.
magicDict
A specific point of pain was magicDict
which is a special identifier which does not exist at runtime. It relies on an inbuilt RULE in order to eliminate it.
The rule is defined at match_magicDict
.
If you don't eliminate it then you will get a linker error like
/root/ghcleap/libraries/base/distinstall/build/libHSbase4.12.0.0ghc8.5.so: undefined reference to `ghczmprim_GHCziPrim_magicDict_closure
I (Matthew) made the matching more robust in the two places in base by using a function as the argument to magicDict
rather than a data constructor
as the builtin rule only uses that information for the type of the function.
Donotation/rebindable syntax
Typechecking of the do notation relies on typing templates (SyntaxOpType
). The type of (>>=)
(in particular), in the context, is matched against its template, returning the type.
In order to support (>>=)
operators with varying multiplicities, function templates (SynFun
) now return their multiplicity. Specifically SyntaxOpType
now returns a second list of all the multiplicities (from left to right) which it computed.
I (aspiwack) introduced a second list at a time where there wasn't a correspondence between types and multiplicities. It could be changed to return multiplicities as types in the main list. It's not much of a simplification, though.
Core
Core Lint
Core variables are changed to carry a multiplicity. The multiplicity annotation on the case, as in the paper, is the multiplicity of the casebinder.
In Core, nonrecursive lets are changed compared to the paper (see Coretocore passes below): instead of carrying a multiplicity, their multiplicity is typechecked as is they were inline at the usage point. To represent this, variables, in actuality, either carry a multiplicity (Regular
) or they are what we've been calling in the code, an aliaslike variable (Alias
). (recursive let binders always have multiplicity Omega
)
The linter is modified in two ways to account for linearity. First the main loop (lintCoreExpr
) returns a usage environment in addition to a type. This is like the surfacelanguage type checker. In addition, the environment in the LintM
monad is modified to carry a mapping from aliaslike variables to the usage environment of their righthand side.
When a variable x
is linted, if x
is Regular
, then it emits the usage environment [x :> 1]
. If it's Alias
, it instead retrieves it's righthand side usage environment from the LintM
environment, and emits that instead.
FunTyCon
FunTy
is a special case of a Type
. It is a fully applied function type constructor, so now a function type constructor with five arguments.
This special case is constructed in mkTyConApp
. The problems come when a FunTy
is deconstructed, for example repSplitTyConApp_maybe
, if this
list is not the right length then you get some very confusing errors. The place which was hardest to track down was in Coercion
where decomposeFunCo
had some magic numbers corresponding to the the position of the types of the function arguments.
Look for Note [Function coercions]
and grep for lists of exactly length 5 if you modify this for whatever reason.
FunCo
FunCo is modified to take an extra coercion argument which corresponds to coercions between multiplicities. This was added because there was a point to where mkTyConAppCo
took a coercion as an argument and needed
to produce a Rig
. It was defaulted to Omega
for a long time but eventually I changed it to Coercion
. This seemed to work but there were some problems in CoreLint which mean the check for the role of the coercion
has been commented out for now.
A noteworthy consequence of having an extra argument to FunTyCon
and FunCo
, is that some handwritten numbers in the code must change. Indeed, the injectivity of type constructors (that C a ~ C b
implies a ~ b
) is implemented by projecting an argument referred by number. This works for FunCo
too. And it is made use of directly in the code, where the field number is manually written. These field numbers had to be changed. A more robust solution would be to name the projections which are used in the code, and define them close to the definition of FunCo
.
splitFunTy
and mkFunTy
.
The core of the implementation is a change to splitFunTy
. As the arrow now has an associated multiplicity, splitFunTy
must also return the multiplicity of the arrow. Many changes to the compiler arise from situations where
either splitFunTy
is called and then we must keep track of the additional information it returns. Further, when there is a call to mkFunTy
, we must also supply a multiplicity.
Core to core passes
Rebuilding expressions in the optimiser
This subsection is somewhat out of date because letbinders now have aliaslike quality to be able to float out. However, everything here still apply for the caseofcase transformation.
There are situations in the optimiser where lets more through cases when case of case is applied.
The simplifier creates let bindings under certain circumstances which
are then inserted later. These are returned in SimplFloats
.
However, we have to be somewhat careful here when it comes to linearity as if we create a floating binding x in the scrutinee position.
case_w (let x[1] = "Foo" in Qux x) of Qux _ > "Bar"
then the let will end up outside the case
if we perform KnownBranch or
the case of case optimisation.
let x[1] = "Foo" in "Bar"
So we get a linearity failure as the one usage of x is eliminated. However, because the ambient context is an Omega context, we know that we will use the scrutinee Omega times and hence all bindings inside it Omega times as well. The failure was that we created a [1] binding whilst inside this context and it then escaped without being scaled.
We also have to be careful as if we have a [1] case
case_1 (let x[1] = "Foo" in Qux x) of Qux x > x
then the binding maintains the correct linearity once it is floated rom the case and KnownBranch is performed.
let x[1] = "Foo" in x
The difficulty mainly comes from that we only discover this context at a later point once we have rebuilt the continuation. So, whilst rebuilding a continuation we keep track of how many caseofcase like opportunities take place and hence how much we have to scale lets floated from the scrutinee. This is achieved by adding a Writer like effect to the SimplM data type. It seems to work in practice, at least for T12944 which originally highlighted this problem.
Why do we do this scaling afterwards rather than when the binding is created? It is possible the binding comes from a point deep inside the expression. It wasn't clear to me that we know enough about the context at the point we make the binding due to the SimplCont type. It might be thread this information through to get it right at definition site. For now, I leave warnings and this message to my future self.
For an indepth discussion see: https://github.com/tweag/ghc/issues/78 and https://github.com/tweag/ghc/pull/87
Pushing functiontype coercions
Coercions of kind a > b ~ c > d
are routinely pushed through lambdas or application as follows
(f > co) u ~~> (f (u > co_arg)) > co_res (\x > u) > co ~~> \x' > u[x\(x > co_arg)] > co_res
However, this can't always be done when multiplicities are involved: the multiplicity could be coerced (in particular, by unsafeCoerce
). So, it's possible that the left hand side of these rules is welltyped, while the right hand side isn't. Here is an example of this phenomenon.
 Assuming co :: (Int > ()) ~ (Int >. ()) fun x ::(1) Int > (fun _ > () > co) x ~~> fun x ::(1) Int > (fun _ ::(ω) Int > ()) x
To prevent this, we guard this reduction with the condition that the multiplicity component of the coercion is a reflexivity coercion.
I (aspiwack) believe we are only checking whether the coercion is syntactically a reflexivity coercion. This is probably over conservative as coercions are not necessarily fully simplified. We probably need a finer grained test, otherwise this will cause performance regressions.
CPR worker/wrapper split
Case multiplicity
The CPR split transforms a function
f :: A > B
Into a pair
$wf :: A > (# C, D #)  supposing f's B is built with a constructor with two arguments f x = case $wf x of (# y, z #) > B y z
With linear types, we still need to choose a multiplicity for the case. The correct multiplicity is 1
. It works whether f
has linear arguments or not. So, the linear transformation is:
$wf :: A > (# C, D #)  supposing f's B is built with a constructor with two arguments f x = case_1 $wf x of (# y, z #) > B y z
The worker is defined similarly, and also uses a case_1
.
Unrestricted fields
Consider a function
f :: Int > Unrestricted A
The argument type doesn't matter, the result type does.
The CPR split yields:
$wf :: Int > (# A #) f x = case_1 $wf x of (# y #) > Unrestricted y
This is illtyped unless (# #)
has an unrestricted field (currently, all fields of an unboxed tuple are linear).
The principled solution is to have unboxed tuple be parametrised by the multiplicity of their field, that is
type (#,#) :: forall r s. Multiplicity > Multiplicity > TYPE r > TYPE s > TYPE … data (#,#) p q a b where (#,#) :: a :p> b :q> (#,#) p q a b
At least the unboxed tuples used by core should have such a type. It can also be a userfacing feature.
At the moment, however, CPR is simply restricted to the case where the constructor only has linear field, precluding some optimisation, but being less intrusive.
Debugging
If you are debugging then it is very useful to turn on the explicit printing of weights in two places.
 The outputable instance for
Weighted
inWeight
.  The weight of variables in
Var
, line 309.
There are disabled by default as they affect test output.
Misc
 Patterns are type checked in a context multiplicity which scales the constructor fields, extending the
case_p
from the paper.  In error messages,
FUN 'Omega
is prettyprinted as(>)
, just likeTYPE 'LiftedRep
is prettyprinted asType
(or*
).
Attachments (2)

minicore.pdf (79.8 KB)  added by 4 weeks ago.
Formalisation of (simplified) Linear Core

minicore.2.pdf (79.8 KB)  added by 4 weeks ago.
Formalisation of (simplified) Linear Core
Download all attachments as: .zip