This PR enables the specializer to also recursively specialize in some
non trivial higher order situations.
The main motivation for this change is the upcoming changes to do
notation by sgraf. In there he uses combinators such as
```lean
@[specialize, expose]
def List.newForIn {α β γ} (l : List α) (b : β) (kcons : α → (β → γ) → β → γ) (knil : β → γ) : γ :=
match l with
| [] => knil b
| a :: l => kcons a (l.newForIn · kcons knil) b
```
in programs such as
```lean
def testing :=
let x := 42;
List.newForIn (β := Nat) (γ := Id Nat)
[1,2,3]
x
(fun i kcontinue s =>
let x := s;
List.newForIn
[i:10].toList x
(fun j kcontinue s =>
let x := s;
let x := x + i + j;
kcontinue x)
kcontinue)
pure
```
inspecting this IR right before we get to the specializer in the current
compiler we get:
```
[Compiler.eagerLambdaLifting] size: 22
def testing : Nat :=
fun _f.1 _y.2 : Nat :=
return _y.2;
let x := 42;
let _x.3 := 1;
fun _f.4 i kcontinue s : Nat :=
fun _f.5 j kcontinue s : Nat :=
let _x.6 := Nat.add s i;
let x := Nat.add _x.6 j;
let _x.7 := kcontinue x;
return _x.7;
let _x.8 := 10;
let _x.9 := Nat.sub _x.8 i;
let _x.10 := Nat.add _x.9 _x.3;
let _x.11 := 1;
let _x.12 := Nat.sub _x.10 _x.11;
let _x.13 := Nat.mul _x.3 _x.12;
let _x.14 := Nat.add i _x.13;
let _x.15 := @List.nil _;
let _x.16 := List.range'TR.go _x.3 _x.12 _x.14 _x.15;
let _x.17 := @List.newForIn _ _ _ _x.16 s _f.5 kcontinue;
return _x.17;
let _x.18 := 2;
let _x.19 := 3;
let _x.20 := @List.nil _;
let _x.21 := @List.cons _ _x.19 _x.20;
let _x.22 := @List.cons _ _x.18 _x.21;
let _x.23 := @List.cons _ _x.3 _x.22;
let _x.24 := @List.newForIn _ _ _ _x.23 x _f.4 _f.1;
return _x.24
```
Here the `kcontinue` higher order functions pose a special challenge
because they delay the discovery of new specialization opportunities.
Inspecting the IR after the current specializer (and a cleanup simp
step) we get functions that look as follows:
```
[simp] size: 7
def List.newForIn._at_.testing.spec_0 i kcontinue l b : Nat :=
cases l : Nat
| List.nil =>
let _x.1 := kcontinue b;
return _x.1
| List.cons head.2 tail.3 =>
let _x.4 := Nat.add b i;
let x := Nat.add _x.4 head.2;
let _x.5 := List.newForIn._at_.testing.spec_0 i kcontinue tail.3 x;
return _x.5
[simp] size: 14
def List.newForIn._at_.List.newForIn._at_.testing.spec_1.spec_1 _x.1 l b : Nat :=
cases l : Nat
| List.nil =>
return b
| List.cons head.2 tail.3 =>
fun _f.4 x.5 : Nat :=
let _x.6 := List.newForIn._at_.List.newForIn._at_.testing.spec_1.spec_1 _x.1 tail.3 x.5;
return _x.6;
let _x.7 := 10;
let _x.8 := Nat.sub _x.7 head.2;
let _x.9 := Nat.add _x.8 _x.1;
let _x.10 := 1;
let _x.11 := Nat.sub _x.9 _x.10;
let _x.12 := Nat.mul _x.1 _x.11;
let _x.13 := Nat.add head.2 _x.12;
let _x.14 := @List.nil _;
let _x.15 := List.range'TR.go _x.1 _x.11 _x.13 _x.14;
let _x.16 := List.newForIn._at_.testing.spec_0 head.2 _f.4 _x.15 b;
return _x.16
```
Observe that the specializer decided to abstract over `kcontinue`
instead of specializing further recursively. Thus this tight loop is now
going through an indirect call.
This PR now changes the specializer somewhat fundamentally to handle
situations like this. The most notable change is going to a fixpoint
loop of:
1. Specialize all current declarations in the worklist
2. If a declaration
- succeeded in specializing run the simplifier on it and put it back
onto the worklist
- if it didn't don't put it back onto the worklist anymore
3. Put all newly generated specialisations on the worklist
4. Recompute fixed parameters for the current SCC
5. Repeat until the worklist is empty
Furthermore, declarations that were already specialized:
- only consider `fixedHO` parameters for specialization, in order to
avoid termination issues with repeated specialization and abstraction of
type class parameters under binders
- recursively specialized declarations only allow specialization if at
least one of their fixedHO arguments is not a parameter itself. The
reason for allowing this in first generation specialization is that we
refrain from specializing inside the body of a declaration marked as
`@[specialize]`. Thus we need to specialize them even if their arguments
don't actually contain anything of interest in order to ensure that type
classes etc. are correctly cleaned up within their bodies.
There is one last trade-off to consider. When specializing code
generated by the new do elaborator we sometimes generate intermediate
specializations that are not actually part of any call graph after we
are done specializing. We could in principle detect these functions and
delete them but having them in cache is potentially helpful for further
specializations later. Once the new do elaborator lands we plan to test
this trade-off.
Closes#10924
This PR migrates usages of `Std.Range` to the new polymorphic ranges.
This PR unfortunately increases the transitive imports for
frequently-used parts of `Init` because the ranges now rely on iterators
in order to provide their functionality for types other than `Nat`.
However, iteration over ranges in compiled code is as efficient as
before in the examples I checked. This is because of a special
`IteratorLoop` implementation provided in the PR for this purpose.
There were two issues that were uncovered during migration:
* In `IndPredBelow.lean`, migrating the last remaining range causes
`compilerTest1.lean` to break. I have minimized the issue and came to
the conclusion it's a compiler bug. Therefore, I have not replaced said
old range usage yet (see #9186).
* In `BRecOn.lean`, we are publicly importing the ranges. Making this
import private should theoretically work, but there seems to be a
problem with the module system, causing the build to panic later in
`Init.Data.Grind.Poly` (see #9185).
* In `FuzzyMatching.lean`, inlining fails with the new ranges, which
would have led to significant slowdown. Therefore, I have not migrated
this file either.
This PR marks several LCNF-specific environment extensions as having an
asyncMode of .sync rather than the default of .mainOnly, so they work
correctly even in async contexts.
This PR avoids runtime array bounds checks in places where it can
trivially be done at compile time.
None of these changes are of particular consequence: I mostly wanted to
learn how much we do this, and what the obstacles are to doing it less.
