Hello Simon,
On 2014-04-28 at 11:28:35 +0200, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
However, we can configure the lagged mirror such that we'd automatically
mirror github's 'master' branch into our lagged mirror (we'd still be
free to create local wip/* or ghc-7.10 branches at git.haskell.org if
On 29/04/2014 10:58, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Hello Simon,
On 2014-04-28 at 11:28:35 +0200, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
However, we can configure the lagged mirror such that we'd automatically
mirror github's 'master' branch into our lagged mirror (we'd still be
free to create local wip/*
I would really like that as well.
My experience is it is rather easy to get users to put together a pull
request through github.
It is rather more like pulling teeth to get them to use git properly and
put together a traditional patch.
This would greatly open up the workflow for end users
We should reject LLVM 3.2 if it's known to be bad - I remember running
into this on the RPi too. LlvmCodeGen already checks the version number
and emits warnings if it's too old or too new.
On 24/04/2014 20:04, Austin Seipp wrote:
GHC 7.6 did not support LLVM 3.2 - it was only tested with
I'm sympathetic about not having a test for this kind of thing.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Richard Eisenberg [mailto:e...@cis.upenn.edu]
| Sent: 29 April 2014 19:36
| To: Simon Marlow
| Cc: Simon Peyton Jones; ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: [commit: ghc] master: Improve
I’m surely agreed about the Note -- I also did some helpful name-changing of
related functions and am validating my work as I write.
About a test case: this seems like a challenging thing to test. The new code
affects only coercion optimizations. The only time the extra code would be
triggered
+1
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Edward Kmett ekm...@gmail.com wrote:
I would really like that as well.
My experience is it is rather easy to get users to put together a pull
request through github.
It is rather more like pulling teeth to get them to use git properly and put
together a
I'm trying to sort out the relationship of GHC rewrite rules and
constructor wrappers. I have rules like
reify/(:) reifyEP (:) = kPrim VecSP
This rule seems to fire for `reifyEP ($W:)` rather than `reifyEP (:)`. If
I'm tracking (uncertain), `($W:)` inlines to `(:)`. Sometimes I'm able to
Good idea! Definitely one of the biggest changes.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:35 PM, George Colpitts
george.colpi...@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't have anything about the dynamic linking changes made for 7.8. I
think it's worth mentioning the improvements we expect to get from that. The
highlights
