parallel build fixes for 7.4.2
Hi, recently we've been tweaking our internal build system at Tsuru to handle parallel builds of both cabal packages via 'cabal-sort --makefile' and our local code tree via 'ghc -M'. In addition to the recompilation checker fixes of #5878, the following would be great to have in 7.4.2: 1) http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5891 -- the patch fixes a race condition in creating parent directories for built object files 2) master commit b6f94b5 "Compile link .note section separately from main.c" -- I think this is the patch that fixes link errors we've seen during parallel builds (via ghc -M) with 7.4.1, such as: /x/y/z.o: file not recognized: File truncated and: /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.51-system.20100908 internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/merge.c line 872 in _bfd_merged_section_offset Will everything currently in master already be included in the next release or is it a separate branch? (If it's a separate branch I'll do some more testing to confirm that b6f94b5 is the patch that fixes the link error). Conrad. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: parallel build fixes for 7.4.2
By the way, it looks like the documentation for createDirectoryIfMissing doesn't mention anything about its safety under concurrent invocation. Looking at the code, it looks like it is safe (it handles the already exist exception): http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/directory/src/System-Directory.html#createDirectoryIfMissing But maybe the docs could reflect that -Ryan On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Conrad Parker wrote: > Hi, > > recently we've been tweaking our internal build system at Tsuru to > handle parallel builds of both cabal packages via 'cabal-sort > --makefile' and our local code tree via 'ghc -M'. In addition to the > recompilation checker fixes of #5878, the following would be great to > have in 7.4.2: > > 1) http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5891 -- the patch fixes > a race condition in creating parent directories for built object files > > 2) master commit b6f94b5 "Compile link .note section separately from > main.c" -- I think this is the patch that fixes link errors we've seen > during parallel builds (via ghc -M) with 7.4.1, such as: > > /x/y/z.o: file not recognized: File truncated > > and: > > /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.51-system.20100908 > internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/merge.c line 872 in > _bfd_merged_section_offset > > Will everything currently in master already be included in the next > release or is it a separate branch? (If it's a separate branch I'll do > some more testing to confirm that b6f94b5 is the patch that fixes the > link error). > > Conrad. > > ___ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
I looked at the DORF implementers view http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/DeclaredOverloadedRecordFields/ImplementorsView It appears that we still have no solution for record updates that change the type of a polymorphic field. I think this means we need to look to ways to solve this update issue other than just de-sugaring to typeclasses. On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Greg Weber wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:25 PM, AntC wrote: >> Greg Weber gregweber.info> writes: >> >>> >>> Thanks to Anthony for his DORF proposal, and spending time to clearly >>> explain it on the wiki. >>> >>> I have a big issue with the approach as presented - it assumes that >>> record fields with the same name should automatically be shared. As I >>> have stated before, to avoid circular dependencies, one is forced to >>> declare types in a single module in Haskell that would ideally be >>> declared in a multiple modules. ... >> >> Thanks Greg, but I'm struggling to understand what the difficulty is with >> sharing the same name, or why your dependencies are circular. Would you be >> able to post some code snippets that illustrate what's going on (or what's >> failing to go on)? >> >> Or perhaps this is an experience from some application where you weren't >> using >> Haskell? Could you at least describe what was in each record type? > > You can get an idea of things in the section 'Problems with using the > module namespace mechanism' here: > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records?version=4 > The attachment that Chris Done left to demonstrate his types seems to > be overwritten. > I will bring back his text as it seems his point does need to be driven home. > A lot of Haskell projects have a separate Types module to avoid issues > with circular dependencies. > >> >>> Continuing the database example, I >>> will have multiple tables with a 'name' column, but they do not have >>> the same meaning. >>> >>> If I have a function: >>> >>> helloName person = "Hello, " ++ person.name >>> >>> The compiler could infer that I want to say hello to inanimate objects! >> >> So the first question is: >> * do your fields labelled `name` all have the same type? (Perhaps all >> String?) >> * what "meaning" does a name have beyond being a String? >> >> Your code snippet doesn't give the types, but if I guess that you intend >> `person` to be of type `Person`. Then you can give a signature: >> helloName :: Person -> String >> >> If person can be 'anything' then the type inferred from the bare function >> equation would be: >> helloName :: r{ name :: String } => r -> String >> >> So you could say hello to your cat, and your pet rock. You couldn't say hello >> to a pile of bricks (unless it's been given a name as an art installation in >> the Tate Gallery ;-) > > Of course we know that we can always add type annotations to clarify > things. The question is whether we want to be opt-out and have to > explain people that they can end up with weakly typed code when they > don't want to share fields. > >> >> >> >>> Note that I am not completely against abstraction over fields, I just >>> don't think it is the best default behavior. >>> >> >> So what is the best default behaviour, and what is the range of other >> behaviours you want to support? > > I believe the best default is to not share fields, but instead have > the programmer indicate at or outside of the record definition that > they want to share fields. Basically just use type-classes how they > are used now - as opt-in. But I am OK with making an especially easy > way to do this with records if the current techniques for defining > typeclasses are seen as to verbose. > >> >> >>> And the section "Modules and qualified names for records" shows that >>> the proposal doesn't fully solve the name-spacing issue. >>> >> >> I think it shows only that record field labels can run into accidental name >> clash in exactly the same way as everything else in Haskell (or indeed in any >> programming language). And that Haskell has a perfectly good way for dealing >> with that; and that DORF fits in with it. >> >> Greg, please give some specific examples! I'm trying to understand, but I'm >> only guessing from the fragments of info you're giving. >> >> AntC >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list >> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
Actually, I looked at the SORF page again: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/OverloadedRecordFields There is now an 'Alternative Proposal' section that claims to solve polymorphic update. If anyone has comments on this please let us know! So my proposal would be to somehow use the SORF Alternative Proposal to allow for name-spaced records. This should be used to generate internal constraints and not be exposed to the end user and not automatically abstract over fields. This leaves all of our future options open while satisfying the narrow issue at hand. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Greg Weber wrote: > I looked at the DORF implementers view > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/DeclaredOverloadedRecordFields/ImplementorsView > > It appears that we still have no solution for record updates that > change the type of a polymorphic field. > I think this means we need to look to ways to solve this update issue > other than just de-sugaring to typeclasses. > ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
> Actually, I looked at the SORF page again: > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/OverloadedRecordFields > There is now an 'Alternative Proposal' section that claims > to solve polymorphic update. > If anyone has comments on this please let us know! Yes, Greg the quasifunctor stuff has been there for some time. You seem to be confused between polymorphic fields vs type-changing update. Quasifunctor is talking about type-changing update. (Look at the example given for `data R a`: there's no polymorphic field.) DORF already has a working approach to type-changing update. I make reference to quasifunctor in the DORF proposal. Essentially, if quasifunctor can be made to work for SORF, it can also be made to work for DORF. (Because what underlies both is to use a Has class with methods get/set.) No, I don't think anybody has a satisfactory approach to updating polymorphic/higher-ranked fields. (DORF mentions one, but it's a ghastly hack. In addition to higher-ranked types, SPJ is also concerned about h-r's with constraints. I've added a very speculative piece in DORF's comparison to SORF that considers using Constraint Kinds. (It's probably piling ghastliness upon ghastliness.) > ... and not automatically > abstract over fields. This leaves all of our future > options open while satisfying the narrow issue at hand. > What on earth do you mean by "not automatically abstract over fields"? AntC ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
> This should be used to generate > internal constraints and not be exposed to the end user and not > automatically abstract over fields. Every one of your messages about records stresses your dislike for polymorphic projections, and your insistence that the Has class should be hidden from the user. I've read all of your explanations, but I'm still totally unconvinced. All your arguments about the semantics of labels are based on the way you want to use them, not on what they are. They are projection functions! Semantically, the only difference between them is the types. Polymorphism makes perfect sense and is completely natural. There is nothing "untyped" about it. I feel you are pushing a narrow personal agenda here. I think the Has class would be useful to programmers and no harder to understand than other Haskel classes. It should not be hidden. Barney. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Barney Hilken wrote: > > >> This should be used to generate >> internal constraints and not be exposed to the end user and not >> automatically abstract over fields. > > Every one of your messages about records stresses your dislike for > polymorphic projections, and your insistence that the Has class should be > hidden from the user. I've read all of your explanations, but I'm still > totally unconvinced. All your arguments about the semantics of labels are > based on the way you want to use them, not on what they are. They are > projection functions! Semantically, the only difference between them is the > types. Polymorphism makes perfect sense and is completely natural. There is > nothing "untyped" about it. > > I feel you are pushing a narrow personal agenda here. I think the Has class > would be useful to programmers and no harder to understand than other Haskel > classes. It should not be hidden. Barney, these kinds of statements about "personal agenda" are counterproductive. I have put in a lot of work that nobody, including yourself has been willing to do for years to push Haskell's records forward. I would appreciate respectful disagreement - I think I have earned that much. Please just stick to logical arguments. Greg Weber ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
> > No, I don't think anybody has a satisfactory approach to > updating polymorphic/higher-ranked fields. (DORF mentions > one, but it's a ghastly hack. So are the proposals dead until this is tackled, or should SORF/DORF propose not to allow that? > > What on earth do you mean by "not automatically abstract > over fields"? Abstraction over fields is the ability to write a function that works on two records with the same field label. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
I'm sorry Greg, I didn't mean to be offensive. I just feel that all your arguments in favour of this restriction are based on one particular application of records, rather than a general notion of what records are. Obviously this application is what motivates you to do all the valuable work you have done, and I appreciate that. But people are going to use records in many different ways, and I don't think that a restriction which makes perfect sense in your application should be allowed to restrict the ways other people want to write programs. Barney. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
Hi Barney, On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Barney Hilken wrote: > Every one of your messages about records stresses your dislike for > polymorphic projections, and your insistence that the Has class should be > hidden from the user. I've read all of your explanations, but I'm still > totally unconvinced. All your arguments about the semantics of labels are > based on the way you want to use them, not on what they are. They are > projection functions! Semantically, the only difference between them is the > types. Polymorphism makes perfect sense and is completely natural. There is > nothing "untyped" about it. I share Greg's concerns about polymorphic projections. For example, given a function sort :: Ord a => ... we don't allow any 'a' that happens to export a operator that's spelled <= to be passed to 'sort'. We have the user explicitly create an instance and thereby defining that their <= is e.g. a strict weak ordering and thus make sense when used with 'sort'. This explicitness is useful, it communicates the contract of the function to the reader and lets us catch mistakes in a way that automatically polymorphic projections don't. Automatically polymorphic projections feels like Go's structural polymorphism, C++'s templates or C's automatic numeric coercions, and I'm worried it'll lead to problems when used at scale. They're not required to solve the problem we're trying to solve, so lets hurry slowly and don't bake them in together with the namespacing problem. At the very least use two different LANGUAGE pragmas so users can have one without the other. Cheers, Johan ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
> I share Greg's concerns about polymorphic projections. For example, > given a function > >sort :: Ord a => ... > > we don't allow any 'a' that happens to export a operator that's > spelled <= to be passed to 'sort'. We have the user explicitly create > an instance and thereby defining that their <= is e.g. a strict weak > ordering and thus make sense when used with 'sort'. This explicitness > is useful, it communicates the contract of the function to the reader > and lets us catch mistakes in a way that automatically polymorphic > projections don't. But the difference is that <= is (potentially) an arbitrary function, so we need to be careful that the instances make sense. A formally correct system would insist that all instances are (at least) reflexive and transitive. But in the case of records, we know what the instances are: they are projection functions. Every single (automatically generated) instance does exactly the same thing: it projects out one component of a record. This isn't like OO polymorphism, where "messages" are actually arbitrary functions which could do anything, the polymorphism is exactly the same as that of fst and snd. > At the very least use two different LANGUAGE pragmas so users can have > one without the other. This I can agree with. It was the way that Greg mentioned it in every single email which was starting to worry me. Barney. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
Sorry for getting offended! I agree with your sentiment, which is why I thought having to write an extra word in a Record declaration to get automatic abstraction over fields was a good solution to the problem. But now I am in the position of being the lone dissenter on automatic abstraction over fields. And I am in disagreement with SPJ, and I would gladly drop this entire process and just ask him to be a benevolent dictator on the subject. So I am ok with automatic abstraction over fields. Ideally we should have a way to disable it, just as I was proposing we have a way to enable it. But perhaps having this will help force a solution to the circular references issues that makes automatic field abstraction problematic in the first place. After all, Haskell did start with barely any way to do IO. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Barney Hilken wrote: > I'm sorry Greg, I didn't mean to be offensive. I just feel that all your > arguments in favour of this restriction are based on one particular > application of records, rather than a general notion of what records are. > Obviously this application is what motivates you to do all the valuable work > you have done, and I appreciate that. But people are going to use records in > many different ways, and I don't think that a restriction which makes perfect > sense in your application should be allowed to restrict the ways other people > want to write programs. > > Barney. > ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Barney Hilken wrote: > But the difference is that <= is (potentially) an arbitrary function, so we > need to be careful that the instances make sense. A formally correct system > would insist that all instances are (at least) reflexive and transitive. But > in the case of records, we know what the instances are: they are projection > functions. Every single (automatically generated) instance does exactly the > same thing: it projects out one component of a record. This isn't like OO > polymorphism, where "messages" are actually arbitrary functions which could > do anything, the polymorphism is exactly the same as that of fst and snd. I appreciate the difference and it might be enough of a difference (from e.g. OO systems) that the problems seen there won't show up in Haskell under a new record system. Aside: It is possible to have no scalar fields in records of course. data R = C { compare :: (a -> a -> Ordering) } -- Johan ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Johan Tibell wrote: > Aside: It is possible to have no scalar fields in records of course. > data R = C { compare :: (a -> a -> Ordering) } Has x f has no semantic content besides type x having an f field; Ord has (at least in the programmer's mind, even if the language can't check it) meaning beyond the simple presence of a compare function. /g -- "Would you be so kind as to remove the apricots from the mashed potatoes?" ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Records in Haskell
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Johan Tibell wrote: > Hi Barney, > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Barney Hilken wrote: >> Every one of your messages about records stresses your dislike for >> polymorphic projections, and your insistence that the Has class should be >> hidden from the user. I've read all of your explanations, but I'm still >> totally unconvinced. All your arguments about the semantics of labels are >> based on the way you want to use them, not on what they are. They are >> projection functions! Semantically, the only difference between them is the >> types. Polymorphism makes perfect sense and is completely natural. There is >> nothing "untyped" about it. > > I share Greg's concerns about polymorphic projections. For example, > given a function > > sort :: Ord a => ... > > we don't allow any 'a' that happens to export a operator that's > spelled <= to be passed to 'sort'. We have the user explicitly create > an instance and thereby defining that their <= is e.g. a strict weak > ordering and thus make sense when used with 'sort'. This explicitness > is useful, it communicates the contract of the function to the reader > and lets us catch mistakes in a way that automatically polymorphic > projections don't. > > Automatically polymorphic projections feels like Go's structural > polymorphism, C++'s templates or C's automatic numeric coercions, and > I'm worried it'll lead to problems when used at scale. They're not > required to solve the problem we're trying to solve, so lets hurry > slowly and don't bake them in together with the namespacing problem. > At the very least use two different LANGUAGE pragmas so users can have > one without the other. I agree completely. This is what I like about DORF: the D stands for "Declared", which is referring to the fact that the contracts are explicit. Record fields aren't automatically polymorphic based on their name and type, as with SORF, rather they are scoped and disambiguated in the same way as classes. My only discontentments are that it requires top-level declarations for each record field, which feels excessive, and that the polymorphism is opt-out, in other words if you declare a record with a given field and a field with that name/type is already in scope, it is automatically considered to be an instance of the same field. (Not that this is not the same as SORF, because if more than one field with the same name/type is in scope you can (and have to) use the usual explicit module qualification to disambiguate them, and you can write a new top-level field declaration to make it explicit that you're not re-using the field which was in scope.) I think both of these problems could be solved at the same time if (a) instead of requiring explicit top-level declarations for fields, declaring a record would also automatically declare its fields, as distinct from any other fields which may have been in scope, and (b) there would be some lightweight syntax you could use within record declarations to specify that you do want to re-use the record field in scope instead of declaring a new one. This has the added benefit that record declarations as currently written would continue to have the same meaning as they currently have. (For the record, I don't see any harm in also allowing explicit top-level field declarations, outside of records, it's the requirement for them which seems onerous.) So in DORF, if you want to declare a Contact record with a name, a phone number, and an address, you would write: fieldLabel name :: Text fieldLabel phoneNumber :: PhoneNumber fieldLabel address :: Address data Contact = Contact { name :: Text, phoneNumber :: PhoneNumber, address :: Address } -- it's unclear whether the type annotations would be belong in the field declarations, in the record, or in both then if you also want to keep track of people as employees, you write fieldLabel position :: Position fieldLabel salary :: Word data Employee = Employee { name :: Text, position :: Position, salary :: Word } And the name field would automatically be shared between them, and could be used polymorphically with either record. but then if you later write... data City = City { name :: Text} that would also automatically re-use the name field, but that would clearly be wrong. It could be avoided by explicitly declaring a new name field beforehand. (I suppose this aspect of the complaint might be overblown, because as you can see when want a new field you always write a fieldLabel declaration, and if you don't you're implying that you're intending to use the existing one. But it's still very verbose.) In my variant of the proposal, declaring the Contact record would look like this: data Contact = Contact { name :: Text, position :: Position, salary :: Int } This would automatically declare the name, position, and salary fields with their associated types (equivalently to the fieldLabel declarations from the previous example). Then for Employee