Hi, Am Sonntag, den 29.11.2015, 10:42 -0500 schrieb Richard Eisenberg: > On my kind=type branch (D808), I have this test failure for > stranal/sigs/UnsatFun: > > ==================== Strictness signatures ==================== > UnsatFun.$trModule: m > UnsatFun.f: <B,1*U(U)><B,A>b > -UnsatFun.g: <B,1*U(U)>b > -UnsatFun.g': <L,1*U(U)> > +UnsatFun.g: <L,U(U)> > +UnsatFun.g': <L,U(U)> > UnsatFun.g3: <L,U(U)>m > -UnsatFun.h: <C(S),1*C1(U(U))> > -UnsatFun.h2: <S,1*U><L,1*C1(U(U))> > -UnsatFun.h3: <C(S),1*C1(U)>m > +UnsatFun.h: <S,1*U> > +UnsatFun.h2: <S,1*U><L,1*U> > +UnsatFun.h3: <S,1*U>m > *** unexpected failure for UnsatFun(optasm) > > > I haven't any clue what this means. Is it bad? Is it good? Any > pointers?
Unless the test case is bogus (which is possible, it was created by me,
two years ago), the result ist bad. Here is the comment from the test
case source file:
Here we test how a partially applied function (f x)
with a bottom result affects the strictness signature
when used strictly (g) and lazily (g')
In both cases, the parameter x should not be absent
So it looks as if the strictness analysis become less powerful with
your changes. Probably not downright wrong (I guess “L” is always
correct), but less precise.
I admit to not having documented the test case well enough back then.
(I can dig deeper if required, but not right now.)
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
[email protected] • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Jabber: [email protected] • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
Debian Developer: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
