Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of Plugins/Phases


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jun 15, 2008 12:49:12 AM (6 years ago)
Author:
guest
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Plugins/Phases

    v3 v4  
    55We need to be able to specify compiler phases to: 
    66 
    7  * Be able to specify where user phases should fit 
    8  * Control when rules fire 
     7 * Be able to specify where user phases from plugins should fit 
     8 * Control when rules and inlinings will fire 
    99 
    10 == Possible Solution == 
     10The current solution where we have phases 0, 1 and 2 is too restrictive to let us do this well, hence this page proposes a generalization that should solve our problems. 
     11 
     12I believe the proposed system represents a significant improvement in modularity and usability of phase control within GHC. 
     13 
     14== Solution == 
    1115 
    1216{{{ 
     
    2125 
    2226This code has a PHASE declaration which brings a new phase into being. Later rules then use that phase name to control their firing, in contrast to the current system of controlling firing with a limited set of phase numbers. 
     27 
     28Phase names have the same name format as data constructors. There is no technical reason for this, as there is never any ambiguity as to whether a name is that of a phase: the choice is purely asthetic and could be changed. 
    2329 
    2430Phase names are exported, so: 
     
    5258}}} 
    5359 
    54 This module explicitly exports its local phase C, which is defined to occur before the SpecConstr phase. However the programmer is totally free to remove it from the exports list and hence prevent other modules from referring to it. 
     60This module explicitly exports its local phase C, which is defined to occur before the SpecConstr phase. However the programmer is totally free to remove it from the exports list and hence prevent other modules from referring to it. Likewise, you can selectively import phases: 
     61 
     62{{{ 
     63 
     64module Baz where 
     65 
     66import Spqr({-# PHASE C #-}) 
     67 
     68{-# PHASE D > C #-} 
     69 
     70{-# INLINE [~D] foo #-} 
     71 
     72foo = .. 
     73 
     74}}} 
    5575 
    5676== Expressing Dependence == 
     
    7595 
    7696The square brackets are meant to be evocative of optionality in Backus-Naur form, but I'm not yet sure if that is too easily confused with Haskell list syntax. 
    77   
     97 
     98== Compatability Concerns == 
     99 
     100There are two principal concerns: 
     101 * Code that assumes the current phase control mechanism where we have phases 0, 1 and 2 should still work in this new system 
     102 * Compilers that are unable to parse the PHASE pragma should still be able to deal with source code that uses it 
     103 
     104To handle these concerns, first we must provide three "wired in" phase names that support the old usage: 
     105 
     106{{{ 
     107 
     108module Buzz where 
     109 
     110{-# PHASE E < 1, > 0 #-} 
     111 
     112{-# INLINE [~0] bar #-} 
     113{-# INLINE [E] sqpr #-} 
     114 
     115bar = ... 
     116spqr = ... 
     117 
     118}}} 
     119 
     120Note that actually the old syntax allowed arbitrary positive integers to be used, not just the set 0-2. However, supporting an infinite set of wired in names is a bit of a headache and I believe that the higher phase numbers were sufficiently rarely used that supporting them is not a major concern. You currently have to supply an additional flag to the compiler (to change the number of simplifier iterations) to even make the higher phases behave differently than phase 2. 
     121 
     122The PHASEs 0, 1 and 2 will be implicitly and irrevocably imported into every program GHC compiles. A possible alternate design choice is to have them live in the Prelude, so e.g. you can get rid of them by e.g. explicitly importing the Prelude with an empty import list. This reduces backwards compatability however, and is a little trickier to implement. 
     123 
     124Supporting compilers that do not understand the pragma is mostly easy, with the subtelty that we must not require commas between PHASE pragmas that appear in import/export lists. In my opinion we should not even accept such commas on the basis that by doing so would allow users to inadvertently write programs that do not compile on non-GHC and old-GHC compilers. 
     125 
     126An example of how it would look is: 
     127 
     128{{{ 
     129 
     130module Qux({-# PHASE F #-} {-# PHASE G #-} {-# PHASE H #-} where 
     131 
     132import Quux({-# PHASE I #-} {-# PHASE J #-}) 
     133 
     134... PHASE declarations and uses ... 
     135 
     136}}} 
     137 
     138It turns out that we have exactly the required code for this already in the parser to deal with Haddock pragmas.