I will update the wiki page (and later CmmSink) with the guarantees we
expect CallishMachOps to provide. We do need to pick what kind of guarantee
we want to provide. Options are here:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order
Do we want to have these CallishMachOps to imply a full
Hello GHC devs,
While I refactored the ghc code base to declare LANGUAGE pragmas
locally, rather than via -X-flags on the GHC commandline, I've noticed
there were a couple of places where NondecreasingIndentation grammar was used.
What's the current consensus on the use of
Hi all,
I'm trying to understand the paper Time and space profiling for
non-strict, higher-order functional languages[1] and I'm hoping that
experienced GHC devs here could help me clarifying some points. Here's
my question:
In Figure 5, I don't understand why no costs are attributed to `app2`
Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:
To me it looks like that there should be two costs attributed in
application rules. First cost is evaluation of the function
part(which should be attributed in `app1` rule) and second is
substitution part, which should be attributed in `app2` rule but
according to
Yuck yuck yuck -- that's what I think.
Austin's analysis below agrees with mine. The error *is* reasonable, because if
`coerce` worked in this scenario, a particularly dastardly (and very un-Lawful)
Monad instance could break type safety.
Furthermore, I think it's absolutely necessary that
