Hi,
To test the coming GHC 7.8.3, I started to use the latest ghc-7.8
branch. Unfortunately, on my Mac, I saw many warnings which are not
displayed with GHC 7.8.2:
clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-fno-stack-protector'
clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-D TA
Mea culpa. I thought I'd validated but perhaps I got it wrong -- I was in a
hurry because of catching a train.
Anyway, Christiaan is spot on... the Lint check should only be for genuine type
synonyms, and isSynTyCon is misleadingly named. I'll add a patch for that
shortly, and deal with the
On 2014-05-13 at 16:16:12 +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
[...]
> commit 4cfc1fae11ec9a5c4b34ac747f0ce50f52423eba
> Author: Simon Peyton Jones
> Date: Tue May 13 13:15:45 2014 +0100
>
> Lint should check that TyConAppCo doesn't have a synonym in the
i'm quite certain BScarlet will accept patches to fix up llvm-general-pure
for ghc head. Hes a very responsive author
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Gabor Greif wrote:
> On 5/12/14, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> > This one was my fault/decision. The TH.Lib functions tend to mirror
> exactly
> >
On 05/13/2014 12:33 AM, Gabor Greif wrote:
> On 5/12/14, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
>> This one was my fault/decision. The TH.Lib functions tend to mirror exactly
>> the constructors in TH.Syntax. We removed the constructors (for good reason
>
> Hmmm, okay, I see you added `equalityT` which is just
I see that the core-lint patch calls:
> -- | Is this a 'TyCon' representing a type synonym (@type@)?
> isSynTyCon :: TyCon -> Bool
> isSynTyCon (SynTyCon {}) = True
> isSynTyCon _ = False
And from simon's comments it seems like he only wanted to check for "normal"
type synonyms.
'isS
Hi,
I suddenly get
Unexpected failures:
gadt T7294 [exit code non-0] (normal)
indexed-types/should_compile GADT1 [exit code non-0] (normal)
indexed-types/should_compile GADT11 [exit code non-0] (normal)
indexed-types/s
It looks like I accidentally slipped that fix in with the allocation
counters patch, and when the patch was reverted the fix was reverted
too. I'll commit the fix from the patch (which is probably better,
that's what I intended to do all along).
Sorry for the mixup!
Simon
On 13/05/14 07:30,
On 12/05/2014 14:18, Johan Tibell wrote:
Hi all,
I'm not sure how to continue from here. The current backend story feels
a bit shaky. Do we think we accurately need to reflect the memory model
in Cmm before we should venture into this area at all, or are we
comfortable relying on the current imp
On 05/13/14 10:06 AM, Peter Trommler wrote:
Hi Karel,
This issue is ticket #9055, which also contains a patch. Could we please merge
it?
I'm the second petitioner for the merge of your fix! Thanks a lot for
pointing this out and providing the patch!
Cheers,
Karel
__
Hi Karel,
This issue is ticket #9055, which also contains a patch. Could we please merge
it?
Peter
On 13.05.2014, at 08:30, Karel Gardas wrote:
>
> Hello Simon,
>
> I'm sorry to disturb you, but I've noticed that your revert patch below
> contains this change:
>
> diff --git a/includes/Co
11 matches
Mail list logo
