Re: vectorisation code?

Geoffrey Mainland writes: > Hi Ben, > > Progress is stalled on a rewrite of DPH's use of TH since TH is no > longer available in stage1. There is no reason this can't be worked > around, just that it's more work than I initially expected. > > I agree that it would be good

Re: vectorisation code?

Ben Gamari writes: > Geoffrey Mainland writes: > >> Hi Ben, >> Hi Geoff, >> Progress is stalled on a rewrite of DPH's use of TH since TH is no >> longer available in stage1. There is no reason this can't be worked >> around, just that it's more work

Re: vectorisation code?

Geoffrey Mainland writes: > I didn't mean to suggest that DPH should be part of every build, just > that it should be part of *some* regular build. > > If we're willing to do that, then I'm certainly willing to get DPH back > up and running. > We discussed this in today's

RE: vectorisation code?

Simon Peyton Jones writes: > Making it part of *every* validate is a big ask because it takes so > long to build. > > But we already have "sh validate --slow", which runs a lot more tests > than --fast. So maybe it could be part of --slow? > > And I do think that we should

Re: vectorisation code?

Manuel M T Chakravarty writes: > The way I see it, the main cost of keeping DPH around is to handle > breakages such as that with vector. I can’t promise to address those > in a timely manner, which is why I agreed to disable/remove DPH. > > However, as Geoff stepped

Re: vectorisation code?

On 1/22/16 8:05 AM, Ben Gamari wrote: > Manuel M T Chakravarty writes: > >> The way I see it, > the main cost of keeping DPH around is to handle >> breakages such as that with vector. I can’t promise to address those >> in a timely manner, which is why I agreed to

Re: vectorisation code?

On 1/22/16 11:36 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > On 2016-01-22 at 17:23:18 +0100, Geoffrey Mainland wrote: >> I didn't mean to suggest that DPH should be part of every build, just >> that it should be part of *some* regular build. >> >> If we're willing to do that, then I'm certainly willing

Re: vectorisation code?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:23:56PM +0100, Thomas Miedema wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Geoffrey Mainland > wrote: >> On 1/22/16 8:05 AM, Ben Gamari wrote: >>> Manuel M T Chakravarty writes: The way I see it, the main cost of keeping

Re: vectorisation code?

On 2016-01-22 at 17:23:18 +0100, Geoffrey Mainland wrote: > I didn't mean to suggest that DPH should be part of every build, just > that it should be part of *some* regular build. > > If we're willing to do that, then I'm certainly willing to get DPH > back up and running. What's the situation

Re: vectorisation code?

The way I see it, the main cost of keeping DPH around is to handle breakages such as that with vector. I can’t promise to address those in a timely manner, which is why I agreed to disable/remove DPH. However, as Geoff stepped forward, this issue is solved. As for the overhead in compile time

Re: vectorisation code?

| -Original Message- | From: Manuel M T Chakravarty [mailto:c...@cse.unsw.edu.au] | Sent: 22 January 2015 04:08 | To: Mainland Geoffrey | Cc: Simon Peyton Jones; ghc-devs@haskell.org | Subject: Re: vectorisation code? | | Thanks for the offer, Geoff. | | Under

RE: vectorisation code?

Jones; ghc-devs@haskell.org | Subject: Re: vectorisation code? | | Thanks for the offer, Geoff. | | Under these circumstances, I would also very much prefer for Geoff | getting the code in order and leaving it in GHC. | | Manuel | | Geoffrey Mainland mainl...@apeiron.net: | | I'm

Re: vectorisation code?

Chakravarty; ghc-devs@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: vectorisation code? moving it to its own submodule is just a complicated version of cutting a branch that has the code Right before deleting it from master. afaik, the amount of love needed is roughly one or more full time grad students

Re: vectorisation code?

@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: vectorisation code? moving it to its own submodule is just a complicated version of cutting a branch that has the code Right before deleting it from master. afaik, the amount of love needed is roughly one or more full time grad students really

Re: vectorisation code?

On 01/22/2015 10:50 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: On 2015-01-22 at 14:59:51 +0100, Geoffrey Mainland wrote: The current situation is that DPH is not being built or maintained at all. Given this state of affairs, it is hard to justify keeping it around---DPH is just bitrotting. I am

RE: vectorisation code?

To: RodLogic Cc: Manuel M T Chakravarty; ghc-devs@haskell.org Subject: Re: vectorisation code? moving it to its own submodule is just a complicated version of cutting a branch that has the code Right before deleting it from master. afaik, the amount of love needed is roughly one or more full time

Re: vectorisation code?

if I got anything wrong. Thanks! Simon *From:*ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Carter Schonwald *Sent:* 21 January 2015 03:32 *To:* RodLogic *Cc:* Manuel M T Chakravarty; ghc-devs@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: vectorisation code

Re: vectorisation code?

*From:*ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Carter Schonwald *Sent:* 21 January 2015 03:32 *To:* RodLogic *Cc:* Manuel M T Chakravarty; ghc-devs@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: vectorisation code? moving it to its own submodule is just a complicated version

Re: vectorisation code?

Here's an alternate suggestion: in SimplCore, keep the call to vectorise around, but commented out Yuck. Carter and Brandon are right here - we have git, let it do the job. I propose that we remove vectorization code, create a Trac ticket about vectorization DPH needing love and record the

Re: vectorisation code?

On 2015-01-20 at 09:37:25 +0100, Jan Stolarek wrote: Here's an alternate suggestion: in SimplCore, keep the call to vectorise around, but commented out Yuck. Carter and Brandon are right here - we have git, let it do the job. I propose that we remove vectorization code, create a Trac ticket

Re: vectorisation code?

(disclaimer: I know nothing about the vectorization code) Now, is the vectorization code really dead code or it is code that needs love to come back to life? By removing it from the code base, you are probably sealing it's fate as dead code as we are limiting new or existing contributors to act

Re: vectorisation code?

moving it to its own submodule is just a complicated version of cutting a branch that has the code Right before deleting it from master. afaik, the amount of love needed is roughly one or more full time grad students really owning it, though i could be wrong. On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:39 AM,

Re: vectorisation code?

| | Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org Devs | | Subject: Re: vectorisation code? | | | | [Sorry, sent from the wrong account at first.] | | | | We currently don’t have the resources to work on DPH. I would | | obviously prefer to leave the code in, in the hope that we

Re: vectorisation code?

| | | -Original Message- | | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of | | Manuel M T Chakravarty | | Sent: 16 January 2015 02:58 | | To: Richard Eisenberg | | Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org Devs | | Subject: Re: vectorisation code? | | | | [Sorry, sent from

Re: vectorisation code?

Richard Eisenberg wrote: Here's an alternate suggestion: in SimplCore, keep the call to vectorise around, but commented out (not just with CPP, for better syntax highlighting). Include a Note explaining what `vectorise` does and why it's not there at the moment. However, move the actual

Re: vectorisation code?

Chakravarty | | Sent: 16 January 2015 02:58 | | To: Richard Eisenberg | | Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org Devs | | Subject: Re: vectorisation code? | | | | [Sorry, sent from the wrong account at first.] | | | | We currently don’t have the resources to work on DPH. I would

Re: vectorisation code?

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Carter Schonwald carter.schonw...@gmail.com wrote: relatedly: wont the source be preserved in the git history if we remove it? the CPP etc solution is Indeed; most of the projects I'm involved with have a specific policy to *not* keep commented-out or

RE: vectorisation code?

[mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of | | Manuel M T Chakravarty | | Sent: 16 January 2015 02:58 | | To: Richard Eisenberg | | Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org Devs | | Subject: Re: vectorisation code? | | | | [Sorry, sent from the wrong account at first.] | | | | We

Re: vectorisation code?

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote: [Sorry, sent from the wrong account at first.] We currently don't have the resources to work on DPH. I would obviously prefer to leave the code in, in the hope that we will be able to return to it. What's the plan for DPH and

RE: vectorisation code?

| What's the plan for DPH and 7.10? Is it bitrotting or abandoned, and | does this mean there weren't enough users of it to notice and help | maintain it? For 7.10, DPH is definitely not supported, I'm afraid. For a longer term vision I defer to Manuel! Simon

Re: vectorisation code?

Out of curiosity I removed vectorisation code and did a devel2 build. Build time on my laptop went down from 25 minutes to 24 minutes - a modest 4% improvement. Of course there is more to be gained by avoiding recompilations later during development. I would obviously prefer to leave the

Re: vectorisation code?

On Jan 16, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Simon Peyton Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote: For 7.10, DPH is definitely not supported, I'm afraid. Does this mean that the vectorisation code is also defunct? As in, is there a way to usefully access the feature without DPH? Richard

Re: vectorisation code?

[Sorry, sent from the wrong account at first.] We currently don’t have the resources to work on DPH. I would obviously prefer to leave the code in, in the hope that we will be able to return to it. Manuel Richard Eisenberg e...@cis.upenn.edu: Hi devs, There's a sizable number of modules

Re: vectorisation code?

I share Richard's opinion. Janek Dnia wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015, Richard Eisenberg napisał: Hi devs, There's a sizable number of modules in the `vectorise` subdirectory of GHC. I'm sure these do all sorts of wonderful things. But what, exactly? And, does anyone make use of these wonderful