> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> >
> > It's a bug all right, and a bizarre one at that.
> > It's fixed in the before-ghci-branch.
> > I'm not quite certain when it got fixed, mind you!
> >
> > Hmm. Maybe we're going to need 4.08.2.
> The trouble with all this wondrous new GHC code is that one
> suspects that it has
> fixed many of the old bugs by introducing lots of NEW ones.
> Have you tried
> compiling UniForM (now up to 48000 lines of Haskell) with GHC lately?
No, and perhaps it should be part of our nightly test suite (which already
contains several hundred thousand lines of code, BTW).
> I stopped trying to compile GHC from CVS ages ago when I was
> getting unexplained
> core dumps which apparently could only be fixed by
> reinstalling gcc/binutils . . .
And that's our fault?
> I would appreciate it if the two bugs I've reported in the
> last two days were
> fixed, but I wonder where on earth this is going. Is the
> idea to keep on producing
> 4.08.* patches until you're finally confident enough with the
> head branch
> of the CVS repository to turn it into a proper release?
Not quite. We release patches to 4.08 when we have important bug fixes that
need to be in a released version of the compiler. GHC 4.08.1 has actually
been a very stable compiler - the best yet. Just go count the bug reports
if you don't believe me.
We'll release the CVS head when it's ready, which is still some time away.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
