2008/8/23 Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 08:27:44AM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >> I suspect that is my fault, although I did validate. I will check >> >> Ian: could validate continue after a Haddock failure, and simply report it >> along with other test failures? That would stop a Haddock failure >> completely borking the validate run. Or would that be hard? > > What's the objective here? > > We could continue after a haddock error and report it at the end of a > build, but is that better than the developer fixing the problem and then > running "validate --no-clean"? If you're about to push then you need to > fix the problem anywy. > > Or do we not want to haddock as part of the validate process? This means > that the docs will bitrot, and the nightly docs won't build. > > One thing that isn't helping is that some versions of haddock are > pickier than others over what syntax is allowed.
I am working on fixing this. I will contribute some GHC parser patches soon. David _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
