I have a curious situation. I've defined a data type using record
syntax, and my module exports one of the accessor functions. I notice
that GHC is not inlining any of the others, even though they are not
exported.
Furthermore, while poking around to see if I could bend it to my will,
I found that
Sorry about this -- it's my fault. I did validate a fix to the desugarer, but
ndp isn't part of 'validate'. Turns out that the change to the desugarer
provoked quite subtle and longstanding bug in the simplifier.
To get rolling again, use -fno-ds-multi-tyvar. Or just don't compile NDP. I'll
c
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Dominic Steinitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is becoming a bit of an odyssey ("a series of vicissitudes"). I now
> get a bug in ghc. Should I report it?
>
> [snip error building ndp]
This does seem worth reporting. There seem to be other outstanding
bugs whe
On 2008 Jun 12, at 16:58, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
Ok but doesn't that rebuild everything not just the bits that have
changed?
Enough stuff usually changes that it's necessary (and for whatever
reason dependencies don't catch enough of it).
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Dominic Steinitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Configuring editline-0.2...
Setup: Version mismatch between ghc and ghc-pkg:
/home/dom/ghc/compiler/stage1/ghc-inplace is version 6.9.20080606
/home/dom/ghc/utils/ghc-pkg/ghc-pkg-inplace is version 6.9.
This is becoming a bit of an odyssey ("a series of vicissitudes"). I now
get a bug in ghc. Should I report it?
Dominic.
> /home/dom/ghc/compiler/stage1/ghc-inplace -package-name ndp-0.2
> -hide-all-packag
> es -i -idist/build -i. -idist/build/autogen -Idist/build -Iinclude -odir
> dist/bu
> ild
>>> Configuring editline-0.2...
>>> Setup: Version mismatch between ghc and ghc-pkg:
>>> /home/dom/ghc/compiler/stage1/ghc-inplace is version 6.9.20080606
>>> /home/dom/ghc/utils/ghc-pkg/ghc-pkg-inplace is version 6.9.20080612
>
> From the above error, I suspect that you need to run "make distclea
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Dominic Steinitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judah Jacobson wrote:
>>
>> If you weren't planning on hacking editline, it's probably easiest to
>> just rm -rf the libraries/editline directory and do another "darcs-all
>> get" to replace it with a consistent version.
Judah Jacobson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Dominic Steinitz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've built ghc previously and I assumed to keep it up to date I just did
>
> From that error, I suspect you have a conflict in the editline
> package, and the compiler is barfing on the marke
