Hi Mateusz, I've pushed your work and tweaked the testsuite performance numbers on 64bit. The 32bit ones are out of date, but I'll fix them shortly.
I also fixed some of the documentation errors. Thanks for all your hard work. On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/01/14 10:01, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have now merged in the new parser and new features onto a single >> branch. I'm having some issues validating with HEAD at the moment >> (#8661, unrelated problem) but while I get that sorted out, someone >> might want to try validating with Haddock changes on their own platform. >> >> The full branch is at [1]. I have squashed the changes to what I feel is >> the minimum number of commits until they completely stop making sense. >> It should apply cleanly on top of current Haddock master branch. The >> documentation is updated so you can read about what changed. Feel free >> to ask any questions. >> >> I will post again once I can confirm that the branch validates for me >> without any new test failures. >> >> Thanks for your patience. >> >> [1]: https://github.com/Fuuzetsu/haddock/tree/new-features >> > > This is just a simple follow up to say that the changes don't seem to > break anything new on 32-bit Linux. I provide my validate logs before[1] > and after[2] Haddock changes. > > Here's a word of warning: previously, when the mark-up wasn't 100% > clear, we'd get a parse error and no documentation for the whole > package. The new parser no longer does this and instead does its best to > parse and present everything. This means that any Haddock parse failures > should be reported as bugs. As you can see in [1], there were some parse > failures in the past (look for ‘doc comment parse failed’) and they will > now be rendered. This means the documentation might look bad in those > places so it's probably worth while visiting those places and having a > look. On an upside, at least we now have documentation for those packages. > > Validation was ran on commit 15a3de1288fe9d055f3dc92d554cb59b3528fa30 > including #8661 fixes. Here's the relevant tail of the logs: > >> Unexpected results from: >> TEST="lazy-bs-alloc T1969 T3064 T4801 T3294 T5498 haddock.Cabal >> haddock.compiler haddock.base" >> >> OVERALL SUMMARY for test run started at Fri Jan 10 12:45:39 2014 GMT >> 0:17:23 spent to go through >> 3861 total tests, which gave rise to >> 15072 test cases, of which >> 11547 were skipped >> >> 28 had missing libraries >> 3432 expected passes >> 56 expected failures >> >> 0 caused framework failures >> 0 unexpected passes >> 9 unexpected failures >> >> Unexpected failures: >> deriving/should_fail T5498 [stderr mismatch] (normal) >> perf/compiler T1969 [stat too good] (normal) >> perf/compiler T3064 [stat not good enough] (normal) >> perf/compiler T3294 [stat not good enough] (normal) >> perf/compiler T4801 [stat not good enough] (normal) >> perf/haddock haddock.Cabal [stat not good enough] (normal) >> perf/haddock haddock.base [stat not good enough] (normal) >> perf/haddock haddock.compiler [stat not good enough] (normal) >> perf/should_run lazy-bs-alloc [stat too good] (normal) >> >> gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/home/shana/programming/ghc/testsuite/tests' >> gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/home/shana/programming/ghc/testsuite/tests' >> == Start post-testsuite package check >> Timestamp 2014-01-10 12:45:36.897842164 UTC for >> /home/shana/programming/ghc/bindisttest/install >> dir/lib/ghc-7.7.20140109/package.conf.d/package.cache >> Timestamp 2014-01-10 12:45:36 UTC for >> /home/shana/programming/ghc/bindisttest/install >> dir/lib/ghc-7.7.20140109/package.conf.d (older than cache) >> using cache: /home/shana/programming/ghc/bindisttest/install >> dir/lib/ghc-7.7.20140109/package.conf.d/package.cache >> == End post-testsuite package check >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Oops! Looks like you have some unexpected test results or framework >> failures. >> Please fix them before pushing/sending patches. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The failures are the same in both logs. > > Thanks! > > [1]: http://fuuzetsu.co.uk/misc/segfix > [2]: http://fuuzetsu.co.uk/misc/segfixhaddock > > -- > Mateusz K. > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > -- Regards, Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/ _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
