Avoiding `OtherCon []` unfoldings, restoring definitions from unfoldings

Skip to first unread message

ÉRDI Gergő

Apr 1, 2022, 4:05:03 AM4/1/22
to GHC Devs, clash-l...@googlegroups.com

I'm CC-ing the Clash mailing list because I believe they should have
encountered the same problem (and perhaps have found a solution to it

I'm trying to use `.hi` files compiled with `ExposeAllUnfoldings` set to
reconstruct full Core bindings for further processing. By and large, this
works, but I get tripped up on identifiers whose unfolding is only given
as `OtherCon []`. It is unclear to me what is causing this -- some of them
are recursive bindings while others are not.

The problem, of course, is that if all I know about an identifier is that
it is `OtherCon []`, that doesn't allow me to restore its definition. So
is there a way to tell GHC to put "full" unfoldings everywhere in
`ExposeAllUnfoldings` mode?


Christiaan Baaij

Apr 1, 2022, 8:39:38 AM4/1/22
to clash-l...@googlegroups.com, GHC Devs

simplAlt env _ imposs_deflt_cons case_bndr' cont' (Alt DEFAULT bndrs rhs)
  = assert (null bndrs) $
    do  { let env' = addBinderUnfolding env case_bndr'
                                        (mkOtherCon imposs_deflt_cons)
                -- Record the constructors that the case-binder *can't* be.
        ; rhs' <- simplExprC env' rhs cont'
        ; return (Alt DEFAULT [] rhs') }

What you should know is that in Core case-expressions are actually more like:

case scrut as b of alts

where `b` binds the evaluated result of `scrut.

So if I am to understand the `simplAlt` code correctly, `case_bndr'` is the binder for the evaluated result of `scrut`.
And what is recorded in the unfolding is that once we get to the DEFAULT pattern, we know that `case_bndr'` cannot be the constructors in `imposs_deflt_cons` (probably the constructor matched by the other alternatives).

Now... there's also a FloutOut pass, which might have floated that `case_bndr'` to the TopLevel.
And I think that is what you're seeing, and I think you can simply ignore them.

Also... another thing that you should know is that -fexpose-all-unfoldings doesn't actually expose *all* unfoldings.
Bottoming bindings are never exposed.
That's why in the Clash compiler we have the following code when loading core-expressions from .hi files https://github.com/clash-lang/clash-compiler/blob/cb93b418865e244da50e1d2bc85fbc01bf761f3f/clash-ghc/src-ghc/Clash/GHC/LoadInterfaceFiles.hs#L473-L481

loadExprFromTyThing :: CoreSyn.CoreBndr -> GHC.TyThing -> Maybe CoreSyn.CoreExpr
loadExprFromTyThing bndr tyThing = case tyThing of
  GHC.AnId _id | Var.isId _id ->
    let _idInfo    = Var.idInfo _id
        unfolding  = IdInfo.unfoldingInfo _idInfo
    in case unfolding of
      CoreSyn.CoreUnfolding {} ->
        Just (CoreSyn.unfoldingTemplate unfolding)
      CoreSyn.DFunUnfolding dfbndrs dc es ->
        Just (MkCore.mkCoreLams dfbndrs (MkCore.mkCoreConApps dc es))
#if MIN_VERSION_ghc(9,0,0)
        | Demand.isDeadEndSig $ IdInfo.strictnessInfo _idInfo
        | Demand.isBottomingSig $ IdInfo.strictnessInfo _idInfo
        -> do
          let noUnfoldingErr = "no_unfolding " ++ showPpr unsafeGlobalDynFlags bndr
          Just (MkCore.mkAbsentErrorApp (Var.varType _id) noUnfoldingErr)
      _ -> Nothing
  _ -> Nothing

i.e. when we encounter a NoUnfolding with a bottoming demand signature, we conjure an absentError out of thin air.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clash - Hardware Description Language" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clash-languag...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clash-language/alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204011556570.3183073%40galaxy.

ÉRDI Gergő

Apr 1, 2022, 9:37:19 AM4/1/22
to Christiaan Baaij, clash-l...@googlegroups.com, GHC Devs
This doesn't quite match my experience. For example, the following
toplevel definition gets an `OtherCon []` unfolding:

nonEmptySubsequences :: [a] -> [[a]]
nonEmptySubsequences [] = []
nonEmptySubsequences (x:xs) = [x] : foldr f [] (nonEmptySubsequences xs)
f ys r = ys : (x:ys) : r

as can be seen with:

$ ghc -fforce-recomp -fexpose-all-unfoldings -ddump-prep -dsuppress-uniques A.hs

-- RHS size: {terms: 37, types: 55, coercions: 0, joins: 0/6}
A.nonEmptySubsequences [Occ=LoopBreaker] :: forall a. [a] -> [[a]]
[GblId, Arity=1, Unf=OtherCon []]
= \ (@ a) (ds [Occ=Once1!] :: [a]) -> ...

So this is not a lifted `case`-bound variable, but a bonafide
user-originating toplevel definition. And its value also isn't bottom.

.--= ULLA! =-----------------.
\ http://gergo.erdi.hu \
`---= ge...@erdi.hu =-------'

ÉRDI Gergő

Apr 1, 2022, 10:09:29 AM4/1/22
to Sylvain Henry, Christiaan Baaij, clash-l...@googlegroups.com, GHC Devs
On Fri, 1 Apr 2022, Sylvain Henry wrote:

> The unfolding is present if you add `-fno-omit-interface-pragmas` and dump
> with `-ddump-simpl`. CorePrep drops unfoldings, see Note [Drop unfoldings and
> rules] in GHC.CoreToStg.Prep.

Thanks, I forgot to mention that I am already using
`NoOmitInterfacePragmas`, but I wasn't aware that the Prep stage drops
unfoldings (and in fact, I am using Prep output in my real program). But
if that's the case, how come most of my Ids still have unfoldings, and
only a couple of them are missing?

Gergő Érdi

Apr 1, 2022, 11:30:54 PM4/1/22
to Simon Peyton Jones, GHC Devs, clash-l...@googlegroups.com
I'm using Prep's output (mostly so that it's in ANF) in my full
compilation pipeline, so ideally I would save Prep'd Core in my
.hi-equivalents so that I don't have to rerun Prep on them every time
I use them.

I'll get back to you with some concrete examples of `OtherCon []` vs.
meaningful unfoldings next week.

Merging with my other question about shadowing problems with
`toIface*`, in summary it seems that what I really should be doing, is
compiling up to Tidy, taking the `CoreBinding`s from there and using
`toIfaceBinding` on them to save the definitions.

On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 12:53 AM Simon Peyton Jones
<simon.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think any top-level Ids should have OtherCon [] unfoldings? If they do, can you give a repro case? OtherCon [] unfoldings usually mean "I know this variable is evaluated, but I don't know what its value is. E.g
> data T = MkT !a !a
> f (MkT x y) = ...
> here x and y have OtherCon [] unfoldings. They are definitely not bottom!
> You may want stronger invariants on the output of CorePrep than we have hitherto sought. Can you explain what they are? And why you want the output of CorePrep not CoreTidy?
> Thanks
> Simon
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-...@haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-...@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages