Here are my stabs at answers to two of your questions.
> • When/where exactly do Derived constraints arise? I'm not recognizing them
> in the OutsideIn paper.
I agree with others' comments on this point, but perhaps I can expand. A
Derived constraint is essentially a Wanted constraint, but one
William Casarin recently tweeted a link to the bitcoincore devs ACK
system[1], which are
Concept ACK - Agree with the idea and overall direction, but haven't
reviewed the code changes or tested them.
utACK (untested ACK) - Reviewed and agree with the code changes but
haven't actually tested them.
Yes, this works for me.
As for merging, I'm always very grateful when Ben does it -- though I agree
that it would make more sense for me to do it when I can test-then-merge.
Thanks,
Richard
> On Sep 13, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> Simon Marlow writes:
>
>> On 19 August 2017 at
Bump it down, maybe... it got /better/!
| -Original Message-
| From: Ben Gamari [mailto:b...@smart-cactus.org]
| Sent: 14 September 2017 16:54
| To: Simon Peyton Jones ; ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Perf improvement
|
| Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:
|
| > I'm s
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:
> Wow... 97 unexpected failures is bad.
>
> Ben/David/someone else: might you investigate/characterise them?
>
I periodically run --slow and have opened a number of tickets in
response in the past (#11819 being the one I was able to easily find).
Bartosz, p
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:
> I'm seeing this in validate
>
> bytes allocated value is too low:
>
> (If this is because you have improved GHC, please
>
> update the test so that GHC doesn't regress again)
>
> ExpectedT5837(normal) bytes allocated: 56782344 +/-7%
>
> Lower
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:
> I'm seeing this in validate
>
> bytes allocated value is too low:
>
> (If this is because you have improved GHC, please
>
> update the test so that GHC doesn't regress again)
>
> ExpectedT5837(normal) bytes allocated: 56782344 +/-7%
>
> Lower
Wow... 97 unexpected failures is bad.
Ben/David/someone else: might you investigate/characterise them?
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Bartosz
| Nitka
| Sent: 14 September 2017 13:57
| To: ghc-devs Devs
| Subject: ./va
Hi all,
I happened to run ./validate --slow on my linux machine and I thought
it would be useful to share the results.
Results:
Unexpected results from:
TEST="EtaExpandLevPoly PatternSplice StrictPats T10508_api T11627b
T12809 T12870a T12870b T12870c T12870d T12870e T12870f T12870g T12870h
T1290
I'm seeing this in validate
bytes allocated value is too low:
(If this is because you have improved GHC, please
update the test so that GHC doesn't regress again)
ExpectedT5837(normal) bytes allocated: 56782344 +/-7%
Lower bound T5837(normal) bytes allocated: 52807579
Upper bo
10 matches
Mail list logo
