Re: GHC 8.10 backports?

[Moritz Angermann]

More like abandoned backport attempt :D

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 7:29 PM Andreas Klebinger 
wrote:

> 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,
>
> 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  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 
>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>> , 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
>>>  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
>>> 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 
> listghc-devs@haskell.orghttp://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

Re: GHC 8.10 backports?

[Andreas Klebinger]

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
,

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 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
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


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
>,
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
> 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 
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
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: GHC 8.10 backports?

[Moritz Angermann]

Thanks! I’ll make sure not to forget that one.
I’m afraid 8.10 will be delayed yet again a bit
as we find ourselves in docker purgatory.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 2:18 PM, Phyx  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I currently have https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/5055
> marked for backports but don't know if it was done or not.
>
> Thanks,
> Tamar
>
> Sent from my Mobile
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 04:33 Moritz Angermann 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi there!
>>
>> Does anyone have any backports they'd like to see for consideration for
>> 8.10.5?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Moritz
>> ___
>> 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

Re: GHC 8.10 backports?

[Phyx]

Hi,

I currently have https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/5055
marked for backports but don't know if it was done or not.

Thanks,
Tamar

Sent from my Mobile

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 04:33 Moritz Angermann 
wrote:

> Hi there!
>
> Does anyone have any backports they'd like to see for consideration for
> 8.10.5?
>
> Cheers,
>  Moritz
> ___
> 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

Re: GHC 8.10 backports?

[Moritz Angermann]

The commit message from
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  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 
> 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
>>
>> 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
>> , 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
>>  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
>> 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

Re: GHC 8.10 backports?

[Gergő Érdi]

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  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
>
> 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
> , 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
>  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
> 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

Re: GHC 8.10 backports?

[Viktor Dukhovni]

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

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
, 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
 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
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: GHC 8.10 backports?

[Gergő Érdi]

I'd love to have this in a GHC 8.10 release:
https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2021-March/019629.html

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 12:34 Moritz Angermann 
wrote:

> Hi there!
>
> Does anyone have any backports they'd like to see for consideration for
> 8.10.5?
>
> Cheers,
>  Moritz
> ___
> 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

GHC 8.10 backports?

[Moritz Angermann]

Hi there!

Does anyone have any backports they'd like to see for consideration for
8.10.5?

Cheers,
 Moritz
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs