Data types
Strictness annotations
#!/usr/bin/env stack
-- stack --resolver lts-12.21 script
import Data.Foldable (foldl')
data Foo = Foo Int
deriving Show
data Bar = Bar !Int
deriving Show
newtype Baz = Baz Int
deriving Show
main :: IO ()
main = do
print $ foldl'
(\(Foo total) x -> Foo (total + x))
(Foo 0)
[1..1000000]
print $ foldl'
(\(Bar total) x -> Bar (total + x))
(Bar 0)
[1..1000000]
print $ foldl'
(\(Baz total) x -> Baz (total + x))
(Baz 0)
[1..1000000]
- Lots of thunk allocation with
Foo - What about
BarvsBaz? A few differences.
Advantages of strictness annotations:
- Avoid space leaks
- No hidden bottom values
- GHC errors out when you forget a field
Recommendation: if you don't need laziness in a field, make it strict.
Pattern matching
#!/usr/bin/env stack
-- stack --resolver lts-12.21 script
import Data.Foldable (foldl')
import UnliftIO.Exception (pureTry)
data Foo = Foo Int
deriving Show
data Bar = Bar !Int
deriving Show
newtype Baz = Baz Int
deriving Show
main :: IO ()
main = do
print $ pureTry $
case Foo undefined of
Foo _ -> "Hello World"
print $ pureTry $
case Bar undefined of
Bar _ -> "Hello World"
print $ pureTry $
case Baz undefined of
Baz _ -> "Hello World"
Memory layout
Foocontains:- Data constructor (one word)
- Pointer to
Int(one word) Inthas a data constructor (one word)Inthas a payloadInt#(we'll get to later, one word)
Barin theory has the exact same thing, but wait till next section- Strictness does not directly affect memory layout
Bazis a newtype, guaranteed to have no runtime representationIntitself is still two words- In ideal situations, GHC can avoid the data constructor, we'll say that with GHC core later
Unpack
That extra Int data constructor is annoying, get rid of it!
data Bar = Bar {-# UNPACK #-} !Int
- Inlines the contents of
Intinto theBarrepresentation - Avoids extra headers and pointers
- Only works on:
- Strict fields
- Non-polymorphic fields
- Type must have a single data constructor types
- Question Why?
- Bonus: applied automatically to primitive types (like
Int) - In practice: don't need
{-# UNPACK #-}onInt- Personally, I'll still add it for clarity often
Why not always unpack fields? It can be a pessimization with large data types due to copying lots of data instead of copying a single pointer. If the value is a machine word, it's always better to unpack, thus the primitive type optimization.
What's in an Int?
Int is defined in normal Haskell code, it's not a GHC
built-in. Don't believe me?
https://www.stackage.org/haddock/lts-12.21/ghc-prim-0.5.2.0/GHC-Types.html#t:Int
data Int = I# Int#
data Word = W# Word#
Magic hash!
$ stack exec -- ghci -XMagicHash
GHCi, version 8.0.1: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Prelude> import GHC.Prim
Prelude GHC.Prim> :k Int#
Int# :: TYPE 'GHC.Types.IntRep
Int# is the magic, built-in value provided by GHC, in the ghc-prim package.
#!/usr/bin/env stack
-- stack --resolver lts-12.21 script
{-# LANGUAGE MagicHash #-}
import GHC.Prim
import GHC.Types
main :: IO ()
main = print $ I# (5# +# 6#)
Going low level
High level, good code:
#!/usr/bin/env stack
-- stack --resolver lts-12.21 script
main :: IO ()
main = print $ sum [1..100 :: Int]
Hopefully GHC optimizes this into a tight loop. But let's write that tight loop manually:
#!/usr/bin/env stack
-- stack --resolver lts-12.21 script
{-# LANGUAGE BangPatterns #-}
main :: IO ()
main = print $ loop 0 1
where
loop !total i
| i > 100 = total
| otherwise = loop (total + i) (i + 1)
- Why did I put a bang on
totalbut noti? - Can you rewrite that function without the bang?
OK, let's get primitive!
#!/usr/bin/env stack
-- stack --resolver lts-12.21 script
{-# LANGUAGE MagicHash #-}
import GHC.Prim
import GHC.Types
main :: IO ()
main = print $ I# (loop 0# 1#)
where
loop total i
| isTrue# (i ># 100#) = total
| otherwise = loop (total +# i) (i +# 1#)
- Basically no need to ever do this
- GHC should always be smart enough to do it for you
- But good to understand that GHC is optimizing to this
- Important for reading core
Sum type representation
- Data constructor: one word, tells us which constructor
- Remaining fields follow
Example:
data Foo = Bar !Int !Int | Baz !Int | Qux
How much memory needed for:
Bar 5 6Baz 5Qux
Constructors with no fields (like Qux or Nothing): one copy in
memory shared by all usages.
Compare the following:
data Result = Success !Int | Failure
data MaybeResult = SomeResult !Result | NoResult
Versus:
data MaybeResult = Success !Int
| Failure
| NoResult
- Semantically: identical
- Calculate memory representation of each
Takeaway: if performance is crucial, consider "inlining" layered sum types. Downside:
Pointer tagging
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/HaskellExecution/PointerTagging
- Pointers are always machine-word aligned
- That means lowest 2 bits (3 bits on 64-bit archs) are always 0
- So... encode some useful info there!
- All zeros == thunk
- Other value tells you the constructor type
- Can avoid a pointer indirection when
caseing
- Pointer tagging only works for less than 4 data constuctors (8 on 64 bit)