Re: GHC upgradable?
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 03:51:12PM +0200, Dawe wrote: > I hope amd64 regression tests are of some help, too. Well, I can do them myself, as I have an amd64, but your results differ from mine, so it's not completely wasted time ;-) > Are the many framework failures for ghc6 expected or did I something wrong? As of march 29th, i had no framework failures for ghc6. I'll have a closer look at your output when I feel too bored -- but if the update to ghc7 is going to happen within the next 10 days or so (which I still hope), it'd be just a waste of time. > GHC7 > > OVERALL SUMMARY for test run started at Tue Apr 5 15:21:27 CEST 2011 > 2695 total tests, which gave rise to >14289 test cases, of which >0 caused framework failures > 2972 were skipped > >10823 expected passes > 372 expected failures >4 unexpected passes > 118 unexpected failures Interesting. I've 134 unexpected failures (and 10807 expected passes). I'll compare your output with mine tomorrow. Ciao, Kili
Re: GHC upgradable?
On Apr 02, 2011 22:26, Matthias Kilian wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:08:41PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote: > > > I am just wondering if there is any reason GHC is not upgraded in the > > > ports tree. The current stable version of GHC is 7.0.3 while the one in > > > ports is 6.12.3. > > > > An update of the ghc port isn't done in a few minutes, nor in a few > > hours, nor in a few days. And it's not only the compiler itself, > > but all the ports depending on it which need updates and testing, > > and very often they have to be patched to even *compile* with a > > newer ghc. > > > Here's something to play with. Regression tests on i386 are welcome > (please both ghc-6.12.3 and ghc-7.0.3, to compare the results). > > Please don't even try to update from an already installed ghc-6.12.3; > it won't work without lots of patches to other Haskell ports. > > The library documentation index (generated by haddock) is still > empty. If you want to help a little bit, you may try to find the > reason. > > Ciao, > Kili > I hope amd64 regression tests are of some help, too. Are the many framework failures for ghc6 expected or did I something wrong? GHC6: : OVERALL SUMMARY for test run started at Wed Apr 6 00:58:43 CEST 2011 2383 total tests, which gave rise to 12596 test cases, of which 6267 caused framework failures 2683 were skipped 831 expected passes 178 expected failures 0 unexpected passes 2644 unexpected failures : Unexpected failures: : 10queens(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :1103(profc) :1372(normal) :1548(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :1679(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :1744(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :1750(normal) :1916(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :1959(normal) :1980(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :2014(normal) :2047(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :2228(normal) :2388(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :2410(normal) :2469(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :2578(normal) :2592(profc,profasm) :2594(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) 2636(normal) :2910(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) : 2917a(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :3132(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :3279(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :3429(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) 3579(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :3586(normal) :Base1(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) : CPUTime001(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :Church1(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :Compose(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :Cpr001(optc,optasm) :DoRestrictedM(normal) :GMapAssoc(normal,optasm,profc,profasm,profthreaded) :GMapTop(normal,optasm,profc,profasm,profthreaded) : IOError001(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :IOError002(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :Nilsson(normal) :NonLinearLHS(normal,profc,profasm) :NonLinearSigErr(profc,profasm) : OldException001(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :PList1(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :PList2(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :RelaxedExamples(profc,profasm) :SeqRule(optc,optasm) :Simple14(profc,profasm) :Simple15(profc,profasm) Simple18(normal) :Simple19(profasm) :Simple2(normal,profc,profasm) :Simple20(normal) :Simple21(profc,profasm) :Simple22(profc,profasm) :Simple23(profasm) :Simple3(normal) Simple6(profc,profasm) SystemF(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :T1969(normal) :T1988(optc,optasm) :T2111(normal) :T2378(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :T2486(optc,optasm) :T2756(optc,optasm) :T2756b(optc,optasm) :T2856(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :T2985(normal,optasm,profc,profasm,profthreaded) :T3001(prof_hb) :T3001-2(prof_hb) :T3007(normal) :T3012(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :T3057(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) : T3245(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm,threaded1,threaded2,profthreaded) :T3286(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :T3294(normal) :T3403(optc,optasm) :T3437(optc,optasm) :T3591(optc,optasm) :T3964(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :T3965(normal,optc,hpc,optasm,profc,profasm) :TH_1tuple(normal) :TH_NestedSplices(normal) :TH_mkName(normal) :TH_repE1(normal) :TH_repE2(normal) :TH_repE3(normal) :TH_repGuard(normal) :TH_repGuardOutput(normal) :
Re: GHC upgradable?
[Rant ahead...] On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:33:39AM +0200, Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse wrote: > > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Latest > It's more complicated then that in the case of ghc. Kili can elaborate more on > that though.. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/ports@openbsd.org/msg32063.html > > Bottom line is that the ghc teams breaks the ghc build system every full moon > and there are some regressions in ghc-7 that need to be addressed first. Oh, in this case (from 7,0.2rc back in december 2010 to 7.0.2 or 7.0.3), you could argue that it wasn't upstreams fault. All they did was changing some make variables like INSTALL_PROGRAM, INSTALL_SCRIPT, INSTALL_DATA, INSTALL_MAN from ordinary variables to callable gmake macros, like in: before::INSTALL_MAN = $(INSTALL) -m 644 after: INSTALL_MAN = $(INSTALL) -m 644 $1 $2 $(call MK_INSTALL_DEST,$3) and at places where those variables are used: before: $(INSTALL_MAN) $(INSTALL_OPTS) $(MAN_PATH) "$(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/man$(MAN_SECTION)" after: $(call INSTALL_MAN,$(INSTALL_OPTS),$(MAN_PATH),"$(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/man$(MAN_SECTION)") Now that's a valid change. However, our ghc port overrides those variables to set permissions, owner and group to fit our needs. So, technically our port caused the bteakage. But IMHO, make variables like INSTALL_PROGRAM etc. are too generic to mutate them into gmake macro definitions like the ghc folks did (for fixing yet another obscure build problem on windows which I'm not even remotely intersted in). [Bonus rant, addressed to the OP} Here are some operating system distributions providing ghc packages: FreeBSD: 6.10.4 NetBSD: 6.8.3 OpenBSD: 6.12.3 Debian Squeeze: 6.12.1 Debian Sid: 7.0.2 <-- Use this -- if it's usable! Gentoo: 6.12.3 Ciao, Kili
Re: GHC upgradable?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:47:45AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > I am just wondering if there is any reason GHC is not upgraded in the > ports tree. The current stable version of GHC is 7.0.3 while the one in > ports is 6.12.3. An update of the ghc port isn't done in a few minutes, nor in a few hours, nor in a few days. And it's not only the compiler itself, but all the ports depending on it which need updates and testing, and very often they have to be patched to even *compile* with a newer ghc. Ciao, Kili
Re: GHC upgradable?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:24:53AM +0200, Nicolas P. M. Legrand wrote: > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Latest It's more complicated then that in the case of ghc. Kili can elaborate more on that though.. http://www.mail-archive.com/ports@openbsd.org/msg32063.html Bottom line is that the ghc teams breaks the ghc build system every full moon and there are some regressions in ghc-7 that need to be addressed first. > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:47:45AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Please, do not take me wrong, I am not demanding anything and I am > > humbly thankful for the work people are doing for free. > > > > I am just wondering if there is any reason GHC is not upgraded in > > the ports tree. The current stable version of GHC is 7.0.3 while the > > one in ports is 6.12.3. > > > > Normally I would not care much to bother about a port lagging behind > > in version but in this case an upgrade will give to developers the > > whole Haskell 2010 language. 6.12.3 is just supporting Haskell 98. > > Additionally programs like xmonad (also in ports) will benefit as > > 7.0.3 will give back to OS memory not needed anymore and having more > > performance. Those are also good thing. > > > > Regards, > > Lasse > > > -- Cheers, Jasper "Capable, generous men do not create victims, they nurture them."
Re: GHC upgradable?
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Latest On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:47:45AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > Hello, > > Please, do not take me wrong, I am not demanding anything and I am > humbly thankful for the work people are doing for free. > > I am just wondering if there is any reason GHC is not upgraded in > the ports tree. The current stable version of GHC is 7.0.3 while the > one in ports is 6.12.3. > > Normally I would not care much to bother about a port lagging behind > in version but in this case an upgrade will give to developers the > whole Haskell 2010 language. 6.12.3 is just supporting Haskell 98. > Additionally programs like xmonad (also in ports) will benefit as > 7.0.3 will give back to OS memory not needed anymore and having more > performance. Those are also good thing. > > Regards, > Lasse >
GHC upgradable?
Hello, Please, do not take me wrong, I am not demanding anything and I am humbly thankful for the work people are doing for free. I am just wondering if there is any reason GHC is not upgraded in the ports tree. The current stable version of GHC is 7.0.3 while the one in ports is 6.12.3. Normally I would not care much to bother about a port lagging behind in version but in this case an upgrade will give to developers the whole Haskell 2010 language. 6.12.3 is just supporting Haskell 98. Additionally programs like xmonad (also in ports) will benefit as 7.0.3 will give back to OS memory not needed anymore and having more performance. Those are also good thing. Regards, Lasse
