With further poking, I think the new codegen is actually tickling
an existing bug in the native code generator optimizations, since
the cmmz output looks ok:
cSH:
_sQR::I32 = I32[_sRi::I32 + 3]; // CmmAssign
_sQS::I32 = I32[_sRi::I32 + 7]; // CmmAssign
_sQT:
On 1/12/11 5:34 PM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
If I were considering contributing minor patches to a project, the use of
git would probably not deter me too much - I can cope with the simple stuff.
But if I wanted more major involvement, git w
Excerpts from Roman Leshchinskiy's message of Wed Jan 12 18:20:25 -0500 2011:
> How would we get the current functionality of darcs-all pull? Is it even
> possible?
Here is the rebase-y workflow. Untested, so I might have gotten one or two
details wrong.
> Suppose I want to hack on GHC and base
On 12/01/2011, at 22:22, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> When you issue the command "git submodule update", you are telling git to
> advance the sub-module repo to the "expected version" (i.e., where the
> pointer points to). The reason this does not happen automatically is that
> you might have also
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> As another non-GHC contributor, my opinion should probably also count for
> little, but my experience with git has been poor.
>
> I have used git daily in my job for the last year. Like Simon PJ, I
> struggle to understand the underlying m
Hello,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy
wrote:
> On 12/01/2011, at 09:22, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> > On 11/01/2011 23:11, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
> >>
> >> A quick look at the docs seems to indicate that we'd need to do
> >>
> >> git pull
> >> git submodule update
> >>
> >>
You can emulate darcs's patch re-ordering in git if you put each
independent sequence of patches on a separate branch. Then you can
re-merge the branches in whatever order you want. This is a fairly
common git workflow.
What happens after the merges? Does one maintain the branches
somehow, or do
I appear to have tracked down the bug for ffi021: the new
code generator doesn't appear to clear the tag bit for the
pointer to heap before:
// outOfLine should follow:
(_sR1::I32,) = foreign "ccall"
_sQR::I32((I32[_sRi::I32 + 7], `signed'),
(I32[_sRi
We can't even do this reliably with darcs. Several times I've tried to
unpull one of Simon's patches to work around a bug, and the dependencies
end up being more than just the textual dependencies. Then I have to
fall back to unpulling by date, which is what git would do. And then
sometimes
* Simon Marlow:
> Thanks for this. I distilled your example into a shell script that
> uses git, and demonstrates that git gets the merge wrong:
>
> http://hpaste.org/42953/git_mismerge
>
> Still, git could get this merge right, it just doesn't (I know there
> are more complex cases that would
On 12/01/2011, at 09:22, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 11/01/2011 23:11, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
>>
>> A quick look at the docs seems to indicate that we'd need to do
>>
>> git pull
>> git submodule update
>>
>> which doesn't look like a win over darcs-all. Also, I completely fail to
>> understan
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Claus Reinke wrote:
>
> In my understanding, the unorderedness of patch history in darcs is
> there to make distributed repos easier (fewer constraints: same set of
> patches, but not same order; can mix local commits and pulls from
> various repos, no need for a central repo),
The main advantages to darcs are that it can manipulate the sequence of
patches better than git.
The main advantage of git is that every version is accurately named. If
two people have a commit with a given hash, they will have exactly the
same files and history.
I've been wondering about this
On 11/01/2011 19:07, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 11/01/2011, at 16:14, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
It also seems to make finding buggy patches rather hard.
Have a look at `git bisect`.
I'm aware of git bisect. It doesn't do what I want. I usually have
On 11/01/2011 23:11, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 11/01/2011, at 22:20, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 11/01/11 21:57, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
IMO, darcs-all works pretty well. I don't think I ever really had
problems with missing library patches.
I often see problems where someone has done 'darcs
15 matches
Mail list logo
