They already said something about waiting on dependencies to catch up with
ghc9, IIRC.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Carter Schonwald
wrote:
> Don’t forget ghc 9 is already out! :)
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 2:10 PM Troels Henriksen wrote:
>
>> It is very likely that issue 17386 is the
Don’t forget ghc 9 is already out! :)
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 2:10 PM Troels Henriksen wrote:
> It is very likely that issue 17386 is the issue. With
>
> {-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wno-overlapping-patterns -Wno-incomplete-patterns
> -Wno-incomplete-uni-patterns -Wno-incomplete-record-updates #-}
>
> my
It is very likely that issue 17386 is the issue. With
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wno-overlapping-patterns -Wno-incomplete-patterns
-Wno-incomplete-uni-patterns -Wno-incomplete-record-updates #-}
my module(s) compile very quickly. I'll wait and see if GHC 9 does
better before I try to create a smaller
Hi,
I'm not sure I see all the context of the conversation, but it is entirely
possible that code with many local constraints regresses the pattern-match
checker (which is accounted to Desugaring in the profile emitted by -v2),
I'm afraid. That simply has to do with the fact that we now actually
Carter Schonwald writes:
> Ccing ghc devs since that’s a better forum perhaps
> Crazy theory:
>
> this is a regression due the the partial changes to pattern matching
> coverage checking in 8.10 that finished / landed in ghc 9
>
> Why:
> Desugaring is when pattern/ case statement translation
Ccing ghc devs since that’s a better forum perhaps
Crazy theory:
this is a regression due the the partial changes to pattern matching
coverage checking in 8.10 that finished / landed in ghc 9
Why:
Desugaring is when pattern/ case statement translation happens I think?
And the only obvious “big
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:
> Ben
> I'm getting a lot of
>
> cpe_app(keepAlive#) 3
>
> cpe_app(keepAlive)
> trace messages from HEAD. Maybe it's a leftover from tracing when you were
> developing? Remove?
Oh dear. Yes, it looks like I removed them from the version merged to
9.0
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:
> Ben
>
> Can we get record dot syntax into 9.2?
>
> * Shayne is really nearly there in !4532; he has been working
> hard and recently.
Yes, Shayne asked about this last week; I updated the milestone and
added it to the milestone highlights [1].
> * It
What time works for you?
My schedule is flexible.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:11 PM Edward Kmett wrote:
> I'd be happy to go with one and see how it goes and plan from there if
> that works for you.
>
> -Edward
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:06 AM Csaba Hruska
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> Would you be
I'd be happy to go with one and see how it goes and plan from there if that
works for you.
-Edward
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:06 AM Csaba Hruska wrote:
> Hello,
> Would you be interested in a weekly show & tell video meeting?
> The topic would be Haskell & compilers in general. Either GHC or
Hello,
Would you be interested in a weekly show & tell video meeting?
The topic would be Haskell & compilers in general. Either GHC or non-GHC
related.
Regards,
Csaba
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
[Re-sending from the correct address, apologies!]
It would be great to get RecordDotSyntax for selection into 9.2.
As I just commented on !4532 [1] there's one awkward point to resolve,
which is that 9.2 will probably not have `setField`, on which
RecordDotSyntax updates depend.
Cheers,
Adam
Ben
Can we get record dot syntax into 9.2?
* Shayne is really nearly there in !4532; he has been working
hard and recently.
* It depends on my !4981 (was 4722) which fixes some bugs and
I'm keen to commit.
So, is it ok in principle to pull to trigger on !4981, and hopefully !4532?
Simon
Ben
I'm getting a lot of
cpe_app(keepAlive#) 3
cpe_app(keepAlive)
trace messages from HEAD. Maybe it's a leftover from tracing when you were
developing? Remove?
Simon
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
14 matches
Mail list logo
