Some of those clarifying points helped a *great* deal. Thanks.
I've addressed comments / questions and linked from KeyTypes.
Ph.
From: Simon Peyton Jones simo...@microsoft.com
Sent: 09 October 2014 22:36
To: Holzenspies, P.K.F. (EWI);
Dear Simon, et al,
I've created the wiki-page about the Unique-patch [1].
Should it be linked to from the KeyDataTypes [2]?
Regards,
Philip
[1] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/Unique
[2] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/KeyDataTypes
I’m with John wrt. the discussions on LTS and the 7.8.4 release being
orthogonal.
Especially if 7.8 does not have submodules and if this is a pain, there’s also
no reason to backport our approach to LTS into 7.8. In other words, 7.10 could
also be the first LTS version.
Ph.
From: John Lato
Wait, wait, wait! I wasn't talking about a parallel *runtime*. Nothing changes
there. All I'm talking about is something that is a very old issue that never
got added / solved / resolved. Somewhere on the commentary, or the mailing
list, I seem to recall that the generation of Uniques was the
From: mad@gmail.com mad@gmail.com on behalf of Austin Seipp
aus...@well-typed.com
So I assume your change would mean 'ghc -j' would not work for 32bit.
I still consider this a big limitation, one which is only due to an
implementation detail. But
Dear Carter, Simon, et al,
(CC'd SPJ on this explicitly, because I *think* he'll be most knowledgeable on
some of the constraints that need to be guaranteed for Uniques)
I agree, but to that end, a few parameters need to become clear. To this end,
I've created a Phabricator-thing that we can
I don't know whether this has ever been considered as an idea, but what about
having a notion of Long Term Support version (similar to how a lot of processor
and operating systems vendors go about this).
The idea behind an LTS-GHC would be to continue bug-fixing on the LTS-version,
even if
Very much part of my plan, Johan! I was a fervent +1 on that recommendation.
Ph.
?
From: Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com
Sent: 06 October 2014 12:06
To: Holzenspies, P.K.F. (EWI)
Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Re: Again: Uniques in GHC
On Mon, Oct 6,
The way I read Alan's earlier mail is precisely that; auto-generated Show does
what he wants (show the entire AST), whereas Outputable hides too much
information. I very much understand his frustration with having to manually
figure out what constructors and datatypes go where in a compiled
Dear Joachim,
Although I can't quite get what you're saying from the posts on that link, I'm
not immediately sure what you're saying should extend to hi-files. These files
are very much specific to the compiler version you're using, as in, new GHCs
add stuff to them all the time and their
Dear Alan,
Nice going and thanks for undertaking yet another useful AST transformation!
A few thoughts (do with them as you see fit):
- Always called ann; doesn't this require OverloadedRecordFields? You're in
danger of delaying your modification (scheduled to land in 7.10). Other than
Dear Simon,
The point is to have
newtype Unique = Unique Int
where we use the boxing of Int, instead of creating our own boxing. Actually,
it seems useful to move to
newtype Unique = Unique Word
(see other discussions about unnecessary signedness).
I've been working on this (although only
Dear Howard,
Yes, emphatically so! Any examples should be copy-paste-runnable if reasonably
possible without any further switches, so that means the pragmas *should* be
included!
Regards,
Philip
From: Howard B. Golden howard_b_gol...@yahoo.com
Sent:
Marginally less verbose; why not use the language extension *only* in running
text? Preferably with a link to the documentation of that language extension.
In your example:
| The language extension refUnicodeSyntax/ref enables Unicode characters to
be
| used to stand for certain ASCII
Dear Simon, et al,
I seem to recall that the Unique(Supply) was an issue in parallelising GHC
itself. There's a comment in the code (signed JSM) that there aren't any 64-bit
bugs, if we have at least 32-bits for Ints and Chars fit in 8 characters. Then,
there's bitmasks like 0x00FF to
Methinks a lot of the former performance considerations in Unique are out-dated
(as per earlier discussion; direct use of unboxed ints etc.).
An upside of using an ADT for the types of uniques is that we don't actually
need to reserve 8 bits for a Char (which is committing to neither the
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 1:47 PM,
p.k.f.holzensp...@utwente.nlmailto:p.k.f.holzensp...@utwente.nl wrote:
thread_id_bits:8 unique_id_bits:56-X tag_bits:X
Is the thread id deterministic between runs? If not, please do not use this
layout. I remember vaguely Unique being relevant to ghc not
Dear Max, et al,
Here's hoping either you are still on the mailing list, or the address I found
on your website (which says you're a Ph.D. student, so it's starting to smell)
is still operational.
I'm working on redoing some Unique-stuff in GHC. Mostly, the code uses Unique's
API in a
PS.
Unique also looks like a case where Ints are used and (= 0) is asserted. Can
these cases be converted to Word as per earlier discussions?
Van: p.k.f.holzensp...@utwente.nl p.k.f.holzensp...@utwente.nl
Verzonden: maandag 18 augustus 2014 15:49
Aan:
Dear all,
I'm working with Alan to instantiate everything for Data.Data, so that we can
do better SYB-traversals (which should also help newcomers significantly to get
into the GHC code base). Alan's looking at the AST types, I'm looking at the
basic types in the compiler.
Right now, I'm
Dear Alan,
I’ve had a look at the diffs on Phabricator. They’re looking good. I have a few
comments / questions:
1) As you said, the renamer and typechecker are heavily interwoven, but when
you *know* that you’re between renamer and typechecker (i.e. when things have
‘Name’s, but not ‘Id’s),
I always read the () as “there’s nothing meaningful to stick in here, but I
have to stick in something” so I don’t necessarily want the WrongPhase-thing.
There is very old commentary stating it would be lovely if someone could expose
the PostTcType as a parameter of the AST-types, but that
Sorry about that… I’m having it out with my terminal server and the server
seems to be winning. Here’s another go:
I always read the () as “there’s nothing meaningful to stick in here, but I
have to stick in something” so I don’t necessarily want the WrongPhase-thing.
There is very old
Dear Alan,
I would think you would want to constrain the result, i.e.
type family (Data (PostTcType a)) = PostTcType a where …
The Data-instance of ‘a’ doesn’t give you much if you have a ‘PostTcType a’.
Your point about SYB-recognition of WrongPhase is, of course, a good one ;)
Regards,
Alan,
In that case, let's have a short feedback-loop between the two of us. It seems
many of these files (Name.lhs, for example) are really stable through the
repo-history. It would be nice to have one bigger refactoring all in one go
(some of the code could use a polish, a lot of code seems
Dear Joachim, et al.,
Yes, you were right, this does fix it. This confuses me even more as to why it
*did* inline Foo.Bar.foo in Foo.Bar.bar without -O, though. Is -O required for
optimization across module bounds?
Also, since I really want a certain level of inlining for a plugin I'm working
Dear GHC-devs,
Is there a reason why, in HEAD, TcRnDriver does *not* export runTcInteractive?
If not, can it please be added? (I considered sending a patch with this email,
but it's so trivial a change that the check of the patch is more work than
manually adding runTcInteractive to the export
PS. Ignore my comments about git send-email. Ubuntu enjoys splitting everything
up in minute sub-packages. I should have installed git-email.
From: Holzenspies, P.K.F. (EWI)
Sent: donderdag 3 oktober 2013 15:18
To: 'ghc-devs@haskell.org'
Subject: Detabbing patch and GHC developers Wiki
Dear
28 matches
Mail list logo
