cvs 4.07 arithmetic errors in Integer arithmetic

2000-02-28 Thread Marc van Dongen

Hi there,

I am trying to fix some errors in the Integer arithmetic
Simon Marlow and I spotted.

I just reinstalled cvs from scratch yesterday and build ghc-4.07
from it. I then noticed that one of my programs resulted in
completely different output than it did with ghc-4.06 (or even
4.07 from cvs a few weeks ago).

I am pretty convinced that the ghc-4.06 output is correct and
the 4.07 output is **very** wrong. I am pretty sure the differences
are caused by changes in Integer arithmetic (again, I have not
noticed these problems with 4.07 and cvs a few weeks ago, so the
changes must have been recent.) If I were to guess the errors are
caused by changes to quot or gcd.

Unfortunately I have very limited time to spend on this. (I already
spent more time on this than I had anticipated I would need.) Is
there anybody who thinks that a *recent* change made by him could
have led to the problems I noticed?

I would appreciate suggestions from cvs hackers as to what
is a good approach to locate the cause of the problem. 

Finally I would like to know if there is a way to get my hands
on a cvs tree for 4.06 so that I can compare the two and see
what happens when I apply a fix to 4.07 against applying the
same fix for 4.06?


Regards,


Marc van Dongen
-- 
 Marc van Dongen, CS Dept | phone:   +353 21 903578
University College Cork, NUIC | Fax: +353 21 903113
  College Road, Cork, Ireland | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: cvs 4.07 arithmetic errors in Integer arithmetic

2000-02-28 Thread Keith Wansbrough

 Finally I would like to know if there is a way to get my hands
 on a cvs tree for 4.06 so that I can compare the two and see
 what happens when I apply a fix to 4.07 against applying the
 same fix for 4.06?

cvs co -r ghc-4-06-branch

will give you the 4.06 tree.

cvs diff -r ghc-4-06-branch 

will give you the diffs between your current tree and ghc 4.06.

`ghc-4-06-branch' includes any patches to the released GHC-4.06 since the initial 
release (eg, ghc-4-04-branch is GHC 4.04 pl1); `ghc-4-06' is the initially-released 
GHC 4.06.  I believe in this case they're the same.

HTH.

--KW 8-)
-- 
: Keith Wansbrough, MSc, BSc(Hons) (Auckland) ---:
: PhD Student, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK. :
: Native of Antipodean Auckland, New Zealand: 174d47'E, 36d55'S. :
: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/kw217/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :
::





RE: cvs 4.07 arithmetic errors in Integer arithmetic

2000-02-28 Thread Simon Marlow

 I am trying to fix some errors in the Integer arithmetic
 Simon Marlow and I spotted.
 
 I just reinstalled cvs from scratch yesterday and build ghc-4.07
 from it. I then noticed that one of my programs resulted in
 completely different output than it did with ghc-4.06 (or even
 4.07 from cvs a few weeks ago).
 
 I am pretty convinced that the ghc-4.06 output is correct and
 the 4.07 output is **very** wrong. I am pretty sure the differences
 are caused by changes in Integer arithmetic (again, I have not
 noticed these problems with 4.07 and cvs a few weeks ago, so the
 changes must have been recent.) If I were to guess the errors are
 caused by changes to quot or gcd.

There haven't been any changes to PrelNum.lhs (which is where quot, gcd etc.
live) since 4.06.  I can't think of any changes off the top of my head that
may have caused this.

Could you send us an example that shows up the difference?

Cheers,
Simon



the impossible happend again

2000-02-28 Thread Kevin GLYNN


Thanks for the bug report.  I am investigating.  In the meantime you
could change the declaration of ArgrC from a 'newtype' to an ordinary
'data' declaration.  It then compiles fine for me.

Hope this helps
regards
Kevin



Volker Wysk writes:
  Hi.
  
  
  ghc -fallow-undecidable-instances -fglasgow-exts -fno-prune-tydecls -O2 \
  -c -o Arglib.o Arglib.hs
  
  panic! (the `impossible' happened):
   mkWWcpr: not a product
  g{-rku-}
  - (g{-rku-},
   PrelMaybe.Either{-r8t,i-}
   ((t{-rkv-} - tzq{-rkT-}) - tzq{-rkT-})
   [Arglib.GenArgError{-r2p,x-}])
  
  Please report it as a compiler bug to [EMAIL PROTECTED]