On 2014-02-20 at 16:26:33 +0100, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
[...]
> While I technically have the push permissions, I'm not a GHC dev. I feel
> like it'd be inappropriate to push in such a ‘fix’ myself. I can post a
> full validate log if that contains information one would need to update
> the numb
On 20/02/14 10:40, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 20.02.2014, 01:39 + schrieb Mateusz Kowalczyk:
>> I just ran validate with current HEAD
>> (2b34947b60069e51abfcada9c45a6d7b590f5a2b) and I have quite a few perf
>> failures. Perhaps these need tweaking? I know that 32-bit
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 20.02.2014, 01:39 + schrieb Mateusz Kowalczyk:
> I just ran validate with current HEAD
> (2b34947b60069e51abfcada9c45a6d7b590f5a2b) and I have quite a few perf
> failures. Perhaps these need tweaking? I know that 32-bit numbers were
> neglected in the past. The Haddock n
Greetings,
I just ran validate with current HEAD
(2b34947b60069e51abfcada9c45a6d7b590f5a2b) and I have quite a few perf
failures. Perhaps these need tweaking? I know that 32-bit numbers were
neglected in the past. The Haddock numbers have been complaining for a
few weeks now but I think everything
