I think there is significant infrastructure in the parser, not sure how that could be managed via a plugin.
Alan On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Jan Stolarek <jan.stola...@p.lodz.pl> wrote: > Would it be possible to turn vectorisation into a compiler plugin? This > would kill two birds with > one stone: vectorisation would be removed from GHC sources and at the same > time the code could be > maintained by Geoffrey or anyone else who would want to take it up. I'm > not sure what would > happen with DPH in that scenario. > > Janek > > Dnia czwartek, 22 stycznia 2015, Manuel M T Chakravarty napisał: > > Thanks for the offer, Geoff. > > > > Under these circumstances, I would also very much prefer for Geoff > getting > > the code in order and leaving it in GHC. > > > > Manuel > > > > > Geoffrey Mainland <mainl...@apeiron.net>: > > > > > > I'm sorry I'm a bit late to the game here, but there is also the option > > > of reconnecting DPH to the build. > > > > > > When I patched DPH for the new version of the vector library, I did not > > > perform this step---now I'm sorry I didn't. > > > > > > I am willing to get DPH in working order again---I believe the required > > > work will be minimal. However, that only makes sense if we 1) re-enable > > > DPH in the nightly builds (and also by default for validate?), and 2) > > > folks will not object too strenuously to having DPH stick around. > > > > > > My fear is that without making it part of the nightly builds, > > > accumulated bitrot will make it extremely difficult to ever > re-integrate > > > DPH. I would hate to see that happen. > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > On 01/21/2015 04:11 PM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: > > >> I’ve had a chat to Manuel. He is content for us to remove DPH code > > >> altogether (not just CPP/comment it out), provided we are careful to > > >> signpost what has gone and how to get it back. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I am no Git expert, so can I leave it to you guys to work out what to > > >> do? The specification is: > > >> > > >> · It should be clear how to revert the change; that is, to > > >> re-introduce the deleted code. I guess that might be “git revert > > >> <some horrible hash>” > > >> > > >> · If someone trips over more DPH code later, and wants to > > >> remove that too, it should be clear how to add it to the list of > > >> things to be revertred. > > >> > > >> · We should have a Trac ticket “Resume work on DPH and > > >> vectorisation” or something like that, which summarises the reversion > > >> process. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Just to be clear, this does not indicate any lack of interest in DPH > > >> on my part. (Quite the reverse.) It’s just that while no one is > > >> actually working on it, we should use our source code control system > > >> to move it out of the way, as others on this thread have persuasively > > >> argued. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Manuel, yell if I got anything wrong. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Simon > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> *From:*ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of > > >> *Carter Schonwald > > >> *Sent:* 21 January 2015 03:32 > > >> *To:* RodLogic > > >> *Cc:* Manuel M T Chakravarty; ghc-devs@haskell.org > > >> *Subject:* Re: vectorisation code? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> moving it to its own submodule is just a complicated version of > > >> cutting a branch that has the code Right before deleting it from > master. > > >> > > >> afaik, the amount of love needed is roughly "one or more full time > > >> grad students really owning it", though i could be wrong. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:39 AM, RodLogic <d...@rodlogic.net > > >> <mailto:d...@rodlogic.net>> wrote: > > >> > > >> (disclaimer: I know nothing about the vectorization code) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Now, is the vectorization code really dead code or it is code that > > >> needs love to come back to life? By removing it from the code > > >> base, you are probably sealing it's fate as dead code as we are > > >> limiting new or existing contributors to act on it (even if it's a > > >> commit hash away). If it is code that needs love to come back to > > >> life, grep noise or conditional compilation is a small price to > > >> pay here, imho. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> As a compromise, is it possible to move vectorization code into > > >> it's own submodule in git or is it too intertwined with core GHC? > > >> So that it can be worked on independent of GHC? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel > > >> <hvrie...@gmail.com <mailto:hvrie...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 2015-01-20 at 09:37:25 +0100, Jan Stolarek wrote: > > >>>> Here's an alternate suggestion: in SimplCore, keep the call > > >> > > >> to vectorise > > >> > > >>>> around, but commented out > > >>> > > >>> Yuck. Carter and Brandon are right here - we have git, let > > >> > > >> it do the > > >> > > >>> job. I propose that we remove vectorization code, create a > > >> > > >> Trac ticket > > >> > > >>> about vectorization & DPH needing love and record the commit > > >> > > >> hash in > > >> > > >>> the ticket so that we can revert it easily in the future. > > >> > > >> I'm also against commenting out dead code in the presence of a > > >> VCS. > > >> > > >> Btw, here's two links discussing the issues related to > > >> commenting out if > > >> anyone's interested in knowing more: > > >> > > >> - > > >> > > >> > http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/190096/can-commented-out- > > >>code-be-valuable-documentation > > >> > > >> - > > >> > > >> > http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/45378/is-commented-out-co > > >>de-really-always-bad > > >> > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> hvr > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ghc-devs mailing list > > > ghc-devs@haskell.org > > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > ghc-devs@haskell.org > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
