Yes, only changing the rule did indeed cause regressions. Whichwhen not including the string changes. I don't think it's worth having one without the other.
But it seems you already backported this? See https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/5263 Cheers Andreas Am 22/03/2021 um 07:02 schrieb Moritz Angermann:
The commit message from https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/commit/f10d11fa49fa9a7a506c4fdbdf86521c2a8d3495 <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/commit/f10d11fa49fa9a7a506c4fdbdf86521c2a8d3495>, makes the changes to string seem required. Applying the commit on its own doesn't apply cleanly and pulls in quite a bit of extra dependent commits. Just applying the elem rules appears rather risky. Thus will I agree that having that would be a nice fix to have, the amount of necessary code changes makes me rather uncomfortable for a minor release :-/ On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:58 PM Gergő Érdi <ge...@erdi.hu <mailto:ge...@erdi.hu>> wrote: Thanks, that makes it less appealing. In the original thread, I got no further replies after my email announcing my "discovery" of that commit, so I thought that was the whole story. On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 13:53 Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org <mailto:ietf-d...@dukhovni.org>> wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:39:28PM +0800, Gergő Érdi wrote: > I'd love to have this in a GHC 8.10 release: > https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2021-March/019629.html <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2021-March/019629.html> This is already in 9.0, 9.2 and master, but it is a rather non-trivial change, given all the new work that went into the String case. So I am not sure it is small/simple enough to make for a compelling backport. There's a lot of recent activity in this space. See also <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/5259 <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/5259>>, which is not yet merged into master, and might still be eta-reduced one more step). I don't know whether such optimisation tweaks (not a bugfix) are in scope for backporting, we certainly need to be confident they'll not cause any new problems. FWIW, 5259 is dramatically simpler... Of course we also have <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/4890 <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/4890>> in much the same territory, but there we're still blocked on someone figuring out what's going on with the 20% compile-time hit with T13056, and whether that's acceptable or not... -- Viktor. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org <mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs> _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org <mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs> _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
