More like abandoned backport attempt :D On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 7:29 PM Andreas Klebinger <klebinger.andr...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Yes, only changing the rule did indeed cause regressions. > Whichwhen not including the string changes. I don't think it's worth > having one without the other. > > But it seems you already backported this? > See https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/5263 > > Cheers > Andreas > Am 22/03/2021 um 07:02 schrieb Moritz Angermann: > > The commit message from > https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/commit/f10d11fa49fa9a7a506c4fdbdf86521c2a8d3495, > > makes the changes to string seem required. Applying the commit on its own > doesn't apply cleanly and pulls in quite a > bit of extra dependent commits. Just applying the elem rules appears > rather risky. Thus will I agree that having that > would be a nice fix to have, the amount of necessary code changes makes me > rather uncomfortable for a minor release :-/ > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:58 PM Gergő Érdi <ge...@erdi.hu> wrote: > >> Thanks, that makes it less appealing. In the original thread, I got no >> further replies after my email announcing my "discovery" of that commit, so >> I thought that was the whole story. >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 13:53 Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:39:28PM +0800, Gergő Érdi wrote: >>> >>> > I'd love to have this in a GHC 8.10 release: >>> > https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2021-March/019629.html >>> >>> This is already in 9.0, 9.2 and master, but it is a rather non-trivial >>> change, given all the new work that went into the String case. So I am >>> not sure it is small/simple enough to make for a compelling backport. >>> >>> There's a lot of recent activity in this space. See also >>> <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/5259>, which is not >>> yet merged into master, and might still be eta-reduced one more step). >>> >>> I don't know whether such optimisation tweaks (not a bugfix) are in >>> scope for backporting, we certainly need to be confident they'll not >>> cause any new problems. FWIW, 5259 is dramatically simpler... >>> >>> Of course we also have >>> <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/4890> in much the >>> same territory, but there we're still blocked on someone figuring out >>> what's going on with the 20% compile-time hit with T13056, and whether >>> that's acceptable or not... >>> >>> -- >>> Viktor. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > listghc-devs@haskell.orghttp://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