Kathleen
I talked to Simon. We are puzzled. Maybe a file has moved, so that make
maintainer-clean isn't cleaning it. (That's something the build system is bad
about.)
Can you try in a completely fresh tree? And, if that fails, send (a url to)
the entire build log?
Incidentally
On 28/08/2010 07:45, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Fri Aug 27 04:05:46 -0400 2010:
You should walk cap-suspended_ccalls instead, no lock is required for that.
For stress testing, you want to construct an example that has lots of
threads making foreign cals and
I can’t reproduce this. With the enclosed module and HEAD, I get the warning;
but when I add –fspec-constr-count=5, the warning goes away and I get the
specialised rules.
Could Cabal not be passing on the flag or something?
Simon
module Foo where
data T = A | B | C | D | E
f :: T - [Bool]
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.comwrote:
I can’t reproduce this. With the enclosed module and HEAD, I get the
warning; but when I add –fspec-constr-count=5, the warning goes away and I
get the specialised rules.
Is this the right fix in general? I
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Tue Aug 31 05:02:13 -0400 2010:
I think the idea of annotating interruptible calls should be good
enough. Simple blocking system calls like read can all be annotated
as interruptible without any problems. Also, pthread_cancel() provides
ways to
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.comwrote:
I can’t reproduce this. With the enclosed module and HEAD, I get the
warning; but when I add –fspec-constr-count=5, the warning goes away and I
get the specialised rules.
Could Cabal not be passing on the
