On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:04 PM Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 October 2016 at 14:03, Michal Terepeta <michal.terep...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at cleaning up a bit the situation with dataflow analysis
> for Cmm.
>
On 16 October 2016 at 14:03, Michal Terepeta <michal.terep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at cleaning up a bit the situation with dataflow analysis
> for Cmm.
> In particular, I was experimenting with rewriting the current
> `cmm.Hoopl.Dataflow` mod
Jan Stolarek writes:
>> I don't entirely agree. I personally find it very hard to review large
>> patches as the amount of mental context generally seems to grow
>> super-linearly in the amount of code touched. Moreover, I think it's
>> important to remember that the need
> I don't entirely agree. I personally find it very hard to review large
> patches as the amount of mental context generally seems to grow
> super-linearly in the amount of code touched. Moreover, I think it's
> important to remember that the need to read patches does not vanish the
> moment the
Jan Stolarek writes:
>> (did you intend to send two identical links?)
> No :-) The branches should be js-hoopl-cleanup-v1 and js-hoopl-cleanup-v2
>
>> Yes, the end result would be the same - I'm merely asking what would be
>> preferred by GHC devs (i.e., I don't know how
> (did you intend to send two identical links?)
No :-) The branches should be js-hoopl-cleanup-v1 and js-hoopl-cleanup-v2
> Yes, the end result would be the same - I'm merely asking what would be
> preferred by GHC devs (i.e., I don't know how fine grained patches to GHC
> usually are).
I don't
Michal Terepeta writes:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57 AM Jan Stolarek
> wrote:
>
>> Second question: how could we merge this? (...)
>> I'm not sure if I understand. The end result after merging will be exactly
>> the same, right? Are
>> you
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57 AM Jan Stolarek
wrote:
> Michał,
>
> Dataflow module could indeed use cleanup. I have made two attempts at this
> in the past but I don't
> think any of them was merged - see [1] and [2]. [2] was mostly
> type-directed simplifications. It
>
remember to set status of revision to "Planned changes"
after uploading it
to Phab so it doesn't sit in reviewing queue.
Janek
Dnia niedziela, 16 października 2016, Michal Terepeta napisał:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at cleaning up a bit the situation with dataflow analysis f
Hi,
I was looking at cleaning up a bit the situation with dataflow analysis for
Cmm.
In particular, I was experimenting with rewriting the current
`cmm.Hoopl.Dataflow` module:
- To only include the functionality to do analysis (since GHC doesn’t seem
to use
the rewriting part).
Benefits
10 matches
Mail list logo