Rethinking GHC's approach to managing proposals

Hello everyone, Recently there has been a fair bit of discussion[1,2] around the mechanisms by which proposed changes to GHC are evaluated. While we have something of a formal proposal protocol [3], it is not clearly documented, inconsistently applied, and may be failing to serve a significant

RE: Windows build

Hi Simon, Thomie changed it so the in place gcc can be called from the testsuite. The tests should pass now. Kind regards, Tamar Sent from my Mobile On Jul 8, 2016 23:02, wrote: > Hi Simon, > > > > For these tests it shouldn’t matter much so I guess I can change them. > >

Re: T11758 testcase help needed

I am not sure if this will work, but how about dumping the assembly and looking for sign extension? C-- might be easier! Excerpts from Alex Dzyoba's message of 2016-07-09 08:25:39 -0400: > Hi, all! > > I was working on #11758, which is about dropping binutils<2.17 hack, and while > it was

first unboxed sums patch is ready for reviews

Hi all, I'm almost done with the unboxed sums patch and I'd like to get some reviews at this point. https://phabricator.haskell.org/D2259 Two key files in the patch are UnariseStg.hs and RepType.hs. For the example programs see files in testsuite/tests/unboxedsums/ In addition to any comments

T11758 testcase help needed

Hi, all! I was working on #11758, which is about dropping binutils<2.17 hack, and while it was relatively easy to remove the hack itself, I'm not sure how to add a test case for it. As I understand, after removing the aforementioned hack, native codegen now shouldn't generate sign extension. So