RE: Reverted f723ba2f3b6d778f903fb1de4a5af93fe65eed10

Sorry about that. Didn't break for me. I'll check. Simon | -Original Message- | From: Ben Gamari [mailto:b...@well-typed.com] | Sent: 13 December 2016 22:44 | To: Simon Peyton Jones | Cc: GHC developers | Subject: Reverted

Reverted f723ba2f3b6d778f903fb1de4a5af93fe65eed10

Hi Simon, Earlier today I noticed that the testsuite started failing with f723ba2f3b6d778f903fb1de4a5af93fe65eed10 due to break024 and break011. See https://phabricator.haskell.org/harbormaster/build/16407/ (I've included the output differences below). I've reverted the patch to keep the tree

Re: Reason for fixing minimum bootstrap version at 2 major releases ago?

Hi, On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:48:25PM -0500, Shea Levy wrote: > I'm wondering, why do we require ghc to be bootstrappable with the past > 2 major releases instead of just the past 1? Is it a common case that > someone is compiling GHC but can't easily get the latest release? Well, I can't speak

Reason for fixing minimum bootstrap version at 2 major releases ago?

Hi all, I'm wondering, why do we require ghc to be bootstrappable with the past 2 major releases instead of just the past 1? Is it a common case that someone is compiling GHC but can't easily get the latest release? Thanks, Shea signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [GHC] #876: Length is not a good consumer

Dear George, Am Dienstag, den 13.12.2016, 12:24 + schrieb George Colpitts: > I got confused; when I  I google   "haskell list length" I end up at  > https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.9.0.0/docs/Data-List.html. > When I look at the source code for length by clicking on "Source" It >