I don't think we should worry about windows server 2003. Unless I'm
mistaken the support Microsoft still provides is mostly maintenance.
The older version of GHC won't suddenly stop working on 2003, as such
all programs will continue to run just fine.
From a development standpoint removing = NT 5
Hi,
I'm trying to attach (f Void#) as a compulsory unfolding to an Id. Here's
what I tried originally:
let unfolding = mkCoreApp (Var worker_id) (Var voidPrimId)
wrapper_id' = setIdUnfolding wrapper_id $ mkCompulsoryUnfolding
unfolding
However, when I try to use wrapper_id' in
Just a small note about parsing:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I think we'll just have to bite
the bullet and adapt the syntax for constraints in pattern types, to
distinguish the match-required and match-provided parts. Suppose we let
Hi,
I am combining the two topics because the issues are both support-related.
First, long term support (LTS) is an important goal in making GHC/Haskell a
viable production platform. I would argue that providing it is a necessary
condition to encourage more adoption of Haskell by plain users
On 15/10/14 09:37, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
I think that would be a fine idea, but it's always hard
- pages change their status (a proposal becomes part of GHC)
- a page may belong in multiple places
- people keep URLs in bookmarks, and they are linked from other pages in Trac
so moving
Hello,
I was wondering how do other devs `validate` their tree? In particular, I
just merged a whole bunch of stuff and am validating things. However,
every time something goes wrong (e.g., unused import warning), the whole
process starts from the beginning, which is quite time consuming.
I am
I was wondering how do other devs `validate` their tree? In particular, I
just merged a whole bunch of stuff and am validating things. However,
every time something goes wrong (e.g., unused import warning), the whole
process starts from the beginning, which is quite time consuming.
$
On 11/08/2014 07:32 PM, Howard B. Golden wrote:
Hi,
I am combining the two topics because the issues are both
support-related.
First, long term support (LTS) is an important goal in making
GHC/Haskell a viable production platform. I would argue that
providing it is a necessary
Hello,
I've submitted a patch to finish the already-merged (but incomplete) ARM64
support that adds support for modern iOS devices
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7942
Best
Luke
(I've also submitted a patch to LLVM to add an ARM64 GHC calling convention
that is in review)
On Fri, Nov
It does work, and it's very useful.
Edward
Excerpts from Thomas Miedema's message of 2014-11-08 14:35:27 -0800:
I was wondering how do other devs `validate` their tree? In particular, I
just merged a whole bunch of stuff and am validating things. However,
every time something goes
On Nov 8, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Dr. ERDI Gergo ge...@erdi.hu wrote:
So we would need to add a way of parsing (T1, T2, ..., Tn; U1, U2, ..., Um)
into a type, which would then require rejecting everywhere else where we
really do mean a type... Sounds painful. Also painful: rewriting the whole
I've stopped validating locally, allowing Travis to do it for me. If you use a
`wip/...` branch and push to the main GHC repo, you can find build reports at
travis-ci.org/ghc/ghc. Or, I'm sure if you clue Travis in, this can also work
if you push to your own GitHub fork of GHC.
Admittedly,
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
On Nov 8, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Dr. ERDI Gergo ge...@erdi.hu wrote:
So we would need to add a way of parsing (T1, T2, ..., Tn; U1, U2, ...,
Um) into a type, which would then require rejecting everywhere else
where we really do mean a type... Sounds
On Nov 8, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Dr. ERDI Gergo ge...@erdi.hu wrote:
Right, but the issue in this case is if we add this artifical constructor to
HsType just so we can fix it up into a pair of contexts, this constructor
would permeate everything else that has to do with HsTypes; if nothing
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
I should also note that I intended the `forall`s to be optional.
Of course, the forall binders are optional in all proposals.
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
On 11/04/2014 05:32 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
The ; match-required part is optional, and the match-provided part might
be empty. So P1 and P2 would look like this:
pattern P1 :: forall a. (; Num a) = b - (a,b)
pattern P2 :: forall a. (; Num a, Ord a) = a - a
How about marking the
On 2014-11-08 at 20:32:17 +0100, Howard B. Golden wrote:
[...]
I am an interested observer, not an active developer, so take my
comments with this in mind. I wonder if the release of 7.10 is being
rushed. Perhaps once a year releases are too frequent for everyone
except the bleeding edge,
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
pattern P :: forall tvs. (match-provided ; match-required) = tau
The ; match-required part is optional, and the match-provided part might be
empty. So P1 and P2 would look like this:
pattern P1 :: forall a. (; Num a) = b - (a,b)
pattern P2 ::
18 matches
Mail list logo
