IIRC the patch doesn't directly depend on -fwarn-redundant-constraints, but I think I ran into some merge conflicts that had to be resolved. I agree with Austin that backporting it should be doable, and would be happy to help if there's interest.
Also, I still mean to submit a follow-on patch that uses the new srcLoc infrastructure to add locations to explicitly-failing functions (i.e. error, undefined, and maybe assert). I don't know if this will be palatable to GHC-HQ as it changes base, but I think it's at least a discussion worth having. Unfortunately I got sidetracked by school stuff and haven't had a chance to throw the patch together yet.. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015, at 10:50, Austin Seipp wrote: > Hi Michael, > > I actually tried to adopt this patch into 7.10, because I thought it > was needed for another dependent patch we wanted. Unfortunately, the > backtrace-via-implicit-params patch seems to depend on some prior work > by Simon PJ in the typechecker (-fwarn-redundant-constraints, a rather > large patch), which we *did not* want in 7.10 (the *textual* diff > applied fine, but there were some API changes the backtrace patch > needed, so it failed to build). So, in the end, it was easier to > surgically remove this patch from the one that depended on it, and it > had a much lower 'surface area' of changes, than adopting both. Hope > that makes sense. > > Also, as Simon said, we don't normally do big changes like this in > point releases, so I think this is unlikely to happen. > > So the short story is "afraid not". But a backport should be possible, > if you're willing to get your hands a bit dirty (any conflict will > likely be fairly easy to fix, but it will involve some textual > munging). > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com> > wrote: > > It looks like the srcLoc change[1] is something that some of our (FP > > Complete's) customers would be quite interested in getting access to sooner > > rather than later. Would there be any possibility of getting that patch > > merged into the 7.10 branch of GHC? I'm not sure if I'd try my luck at > > actually including it in 7.10.1, but would it be on the table for 7.10.2? > > > > We do of course have the option of backporting it ourselves and including it > > in a custom GHC we provide customers, but we generally try to stay as close > > to upstream as possible. > > > > [1] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9049 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > ghc-devs@haskell.org > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant > Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/ > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
