RE: atomicModifyMutVar2

2019-10-14 Thread Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs
OK. I propose: * To give atomicModieyMutVarOf# its proper type, with a pair, as in the proposal. * To do that I’ll fiddle with genprimopcode, to allow it to parse tuples as well as unboxed tuples; not hard. * This would disallow all this stuff about “any type that has a first

Help with debugging a batch mode (or type checker) bug

2019-10-14 Thread Ömer Sinan Ağacan
Hi, In !1304 I'm currently having a bug where I get correct IdInfos for imported Ids in one-shot mode (-c), but not when I use batch mode (--make). If I add a few prints I can see that in hscIncrementalCompile right before hscIncrementalFrontend the hsc_HPT has the correct IdInfos for the

Switch/Case optimisations

2019-10-14 Thread chessai .
I thought Andreas Klebinger in particular might find this interesting. The talk is here: https://youtu.be/IAdLwUXRUvg?t=1867 (timestamp is 31:07) basically, if you have an interpreter consisting of a switch statement inside an infinite loop, there's a mechanical transformation using GOTOs that

Re: validate-x86_64-darwin failing

2019-10-14 Thread Carter Schonwald
We are in slow process of reprovisioning 1-2 new builders. One of our active builders had pretty bad hardware issues so for near term we’re down in mac builder capacity On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:41 AM Brandon Allbery wrote: > Apple makes that annoyingly difficult; someone has to in effect

Re: validate-x86_64-darwin failing

2019-10-14 Thread Brandon Allbery
Apple makes that annoyingly difficult; someone has to in effect donate a Mac to the cause, preferably one with enough memory and fast CPU. (Not literally: one can keep the Mac physically, but would more or less lose use of it for any other purpose.) ___

Re: validate-x86_64-darwin failing

2019-10-14 Thread Richard Eisenberg
> On Oct 13, 2019, at 6:38 PM, Ben Gamari wrote: > > Richard Eisenberg writes: > >> Here's one: https://gitlab.haskell.org/rae/ghc/-/jobs/173464 >> I don't know if you >> can get more information... >> > Right, this particular job simply