Thanks for the feedback everyone. If/when we decide to backport the patch, we'll be sure to make the commit available for others interested in running a custom build of GHC. And thank you for the offer of help Eric, it's much appreciated :)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 8:14 PM Eric Seidel <e...@seidel.io> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
