On 02 August 2006 19:09, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:12 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: >> Duncan Coutts wrote: >>> Specifically: if the user asks for profiling but not vanilla >>> versions of libs and they're using TH then we should build vanilla >>> libs first and then profiling libs. However at install time we >>> would not install the vanilla libs as the user did not ask for them. >> >> Yes, that's right. >> >>> Simon: what about if we're building a program rather than a lib? >>> Should we vanilla-compile all the modules but not link then into a >>> binary and then compile again with profiling and then link those >>> into a binary? >> >> I would think so, yes. Just build with --make -c for the vanilla >> way. > > Ok I've got a patch attached that does this. > >>> And presumably we would only expect this to work with GHC 6.6. >> >> Yes. I'd appreciate it if someone could test this with a TH program >> and 6.6, to make sure that GHC can find the vanilla object files >> correctly. > > Should I expect this to work now or is it still unfinished work for > 6.6 ?
Yes, it should work now. I've turned on the profiling way for our TH tests, and they are passing right now. > I've added a trac ticket so we don't forget the testing: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/91 Which reminds me of a question I have in general: what's the testing strategy for Cabal? I'm aware of the unit tests (which I use via GHCi). 'make moduleTest' spews a ton of stuff, including lots of messages about failures, and I'm not sure whether I should expect it to work or not. In GHC we have a small number of tests in our testsuite for Cabal-related things (http://darcs.haskell.org/testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/cabal). Perhaps we should try to incorporate the other Cabal tests into there too? Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
