[isn't that address list a bit long?]
Hi Mark
does darcs still descend into it, or are such directories ignored completely?
They are ignored completely. I checked this by using "strace darcs..." and
grepping for a system call to a boring directory. By doing this test with and
without an entry for a particular directory, I was able to confirm darcs does
truly ignore boring directories.
thanks, that is good to know.
(perhaps the darcs binary for windows should be built with ghc 6.6.1
at least, or 6.8.1 soon?).
Perhaps, are you able to test with a newer version of GHC?
not at the moment. i was just guessing that replacing old
with current ghc versions would be the first thing to eliminate.
might be a real bug, though..
also, if you can try repeating the test with a darcs binary (available
from the wiki), that would be interesting as well.
it has been several months since that report, and i no longer have
quite the same setup, but "1.0.9 (release)" was and still is the
newest available darcs (1) binary for windows, afaik. are you
saying that these binaries have been rebuilt with a newer ghc
(the wiki might mention that, as just upgrading ghc, especially
from the first in a x.x.* chain, tends to remove some issues in
the generated binaries)?
using a recent complete ghc repo, and the same darcs binary,
i can still get the "realdarcs.exe: schedule: re-entered unsafely"
by interrupting "darcs whatsnew -l --boring", but i can't seem
to get any output anymore, with or without changing the
boringfile pref, so i can't repeat the second part of that report
(realdarcs.exe just consumes memory and cpu time, then mem
usage plateaus, and nothing else seems to happen for at least
4 minutes, after which i aborted).
Thanks for the report!
good to see some activity wrt darcs again!-)
claus
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
