It could well be that it's some later primop that's failing due to the empty size, like my new copyArray# primop. If that's the case I could fix it but I would probably would have to add a branch to the copyArray# primop, which I'm reluctant to do.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: > An Array# of size zero is a perfectly reasonable thing. If it doesn't work, > it should (and I vaguely recall making it work at some point in the past, > but perhaps I failed to add a test and as a result it has rotted...) > > Cheers, > Simon > > On 22/08/11 17:08, Johan Tibell wrote: >> >> I agree (unless it has a performance cost). I had to fix a couple of >> bugs in my code associated with generating zero-length arrays. >> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Edward Kmett<ekm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> It would still be nice to have a consistent base case. >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Johan Tibell<johan.tib...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Edward Z. Yang<ezy...@mit.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> stg_newArrayzh in rts/PrimOps.cmm doesn't appear to give any >>>>> indication, >>>>> so this might be a good patch to add. But I'm curious: what would >>>>> allocating Array#s of size 0 do? Null pointers? That sounds >>>>> dangerous... >>>> >>>> I would imagine that a zero sized array would be a StgArrPtrs header >>>> with its size field set to 0. It's not a very useful thing to have, I >>>> admit. If someone (Simon?) can confirm that we don't intend to support >>>> zero-length array I'll push a patch that adds a comment. >>>> >>>> Johan >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list >>>> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org >>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users