Hello everyone,
Recently there has been a fair bit of discussion[1,2] around the
mechanisms by which proposed changes to GHC are evaluated. While we have
something of a formal proposal protocol [3], it is not clearly
documented, inconsistently applied, and may be failing to serve a
significant
Hi Simon,
Thomie changed it so the in place gcc can be called from the testsuite. The
tests should pass now.
Kind regards,
Tamar
Sent from my Mobile
On Jul 8, 2016 23:02, wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
>
> For these tests it shouldn’t matter much so I guess I can change them.
>
>
I am not sure if this will work, but how about dumping the assembly and
looking for sign extension? C-- might be easier!
Excerpts from Alex Dzyoba's message of 2016-07-09 08:25:39 -0400:
> Hi, all!
>
> I was working on #11758, which is about dropping binutils<2.17 hack, and while
> it was
Hi all,
I'm almost done with the unboxed sums patch and I'd like to get some reviews at
this point.
https://phabricator.haskell.org/D2259
Two key files in the patch are UnariseStg.hs and RepType.hs.
For the example programs see files in testsuite/tests/unboxedsums/
In addition to any comments
Hi, all!
I was working on #11758, which is about dropping binutils<2.17 hack, and while
it was relatively easy to remove the hack itself, I'm not sure how to add a
test case for it.
As I understand, after removing the aforementioned hack, native codegen now
shouldn't generate sign extension. So