We should merge this fix to the 7.10 branch.
On Jan 8, 2015 11:52 PM, Peter Wortmann sc...@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
(sorry for late answer)
Yes, that's pretty much what this would boil down to. The patch is trivial:
https://github.com/scpmw/ghc/commit/29acc#diff-1
I think this is a good idea
This is a great feature, here is some feedback
My syntax highlighter in emacs expects warnings to have the word warning
in them.
So for the two warnings reported below, the first is highlighted as an
error, and the second as a warning
Language/Haskell/Refact/Utils/TypeUtils.hs:3036:17:
I was wrong about binary, sorry. It was just the other three
Simon
From: Lennart Kolmodin [mailto:kolmo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 January 2015 20:26
To: Simon Peyton Jones
Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org; Milan Straka; Bill Mitchell
(bill.mitch...@hq.bcs.org.uk); Judah Jacobson; Ross Paterson
Subject:
(sorry for late answer)
Yes, that's pretty much what this would boil down to. The patch is trivial:
https://github.com/scpmw/ghc/commit/29acc#diff-1
I think this is a good idea anyways. We can always re-introduce the data
for higher -gn levels.
Greetings,
Peter
On 05/01/2015 00:59,
For posterity, the answer is no, and it is explained in this comment:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5129#comment:2
Edward
Excerpts from David Feuer's message of 2015-01-07 11:12:55 -0800:
I've read about the inlining issues surrounding
Control.Exception.evaluate that seem to have
I also note that the definition of isBanged is confusing:
isBanged :: HsBang - Bool
isBanged HsNoBang = False
isBanged (HsUserBang Nothing bang) = bang
isBanged _ = True
Why is `HsUserBang (Just False) False`, corresponding to a NOUNPACK
I know there was a bug in the parser related to setting the HsBang value,
it could be that this whole area has just not received solid scrutiny
before now.
Alan
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com
wrote:
I also note that the definition of isBanged is confusing:
Ha ha ha. Very good, yes!
| -Original Message-
| From: Michael Sloan [mailto:mgsl...@gmail.com]
| Sent: 08 January 2015 00:06
| To: Johan Tibell
| Cc: Simon Peyton Jones; Milan Straka; Bill Mitchell
| (bill.mitch...@hq.bcs.org.uk); Ross Paterson; ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re:
From looking at the code a bit more I'm pretty sure that only HsUserBang
corresponds to what the user wrote and the remaining constructors are used
to note the actual decision we made (e.g. are we going to unpack). Is that
correct Simon PJ? If that is the case, why isn't this information split
On 08/01/15 10:00, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
For posterity, the answer is no, and it is explained in this comment:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5129#comment:2
Thanks, this is helpful.
So we have three potential implementations for evaluate:
(1) \x - return $! x
(2) \x - (return $! x) =
On 08/01/15 15:42, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
Also, where can I find the 'instance Monad IO' as understood by GHC?
grep didn't find one.
Found it; it's in libraries/base/GHC/Base.hs. There are two spaces after
instance; that's why I didn't find it the first time.
Roman
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Also, where can I find the 'instance Monad IO' as understood by GHC?
grep didn't find one.
It's in GHC.Base.
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 03:19:15PM +, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
I’ve pushed a big patch that adds –fwarn-redundant-constraints (on by
default). It tells you when a constraint in a signature is unnecessary, e.g.
f :: Ord a = a - a - Bool
f x y = True
I think I have done
No (2) would not suffer from #5129. Think of
type IO a = State# - (State#, a)
return x = \s - (s, x)
(=) m k s = case m s of (s, r) - k r s
(it's a newtype actually, but this will do here).
(2) says
= \x - (return $! x) = return
= \x. \s. case return $! x s of (s1, r) - return r s1
=
I’m glad you are getting back to strictness.
Good questions.
I’ve pushed (or will as soon as I have validated) a patch that adds type
synonyms, updates comments (some of which were indeed misleading), and changes
a few names for clarity and consistency. I hope that answers all your
On 1. 1. 2015 19:01, Martin Foster wrote:
Hello all,
I've been spending some of my winter break trying my hand at compiling GHC,
with a mind to hopefully contributing down the line.
I've got it working, but I ran into a few things along the way that I figure
might be worth fixing and/or
Then why was the primop introduced?
On 08/01/15 17:05, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
No (2) would not suffer from #5129. Think of
type IO a = State# - (State#, a)
return x = \s - (s, x)
(=) m k s = case m s of (s, r) - k r s
(it's a newtype actually, but this will do here).
(2)
Dear Simon,
Am Donnerstag, den 04.12.2014, 08:56 + schrieb Simon Marlow:
no, does not help, as -lgmp is already passed to gcc by ghc:
/usr/bin/gcc -fno-stack-protector -DTABLES_NEXT_TO_CODE -o
linker_unload linker_unload.o
2015-01-07 18:19 GMT+03:00 Simon Peyton Jones simo...@microsoft.com:
Friends
I’ve pushed a big patch that adds –fwarn-redundant-constraints (on by
default). It tells you when a constraint in a signature is unnecessary,
e.g.
f :: Ord a = a - a - Bool
f x y = True
I think I
19 matches
Mail list logo
