On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Ben Gamari wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 22:26:05 -0500, Antoine Latter wrote:
>> One problem you might be running in to is that the optimization passes
>> can notice that a function isn't using all of its arguments, and then
>> it won't pass them. These even appl
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 22:26:05 -0500, Antoine Latter wrote:
> One problem you might be running in to is that the optimization passes
> can notice that a function isn't using all of its arguments, and then
> it won't pass them. These even applies if the arguments are bound
> together in a record type
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ben Gamari wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:32:13 -0400, Ben Gamari wrote:
>> It seems that the notmuch-haskell bindings (version 0.2.2 built against
>> notmuch from git master; passes notmuch-test) aren't dealing with memory
>> management properly. In particular,
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:32:13 -0400, Ben Gamari wrote:
> It seems that the notmuch-haskell bindings (version 0.2.2 built against
> notmuch from git master; passes notmuch-test) aren't dealing with memory
> management properly. In particular, the attached test code[1] causes
> talloc to abort. Unfo
