Peter Hercek wrote:
As for as the rest of the message. Those are possible bugs.
If I can reduce them to few tens of lines of a test, I'll
post the bug reports. I use Archlinux and the last (non-testing)
version of ghc there is ghc-6.8.2. Do you accept bug reports
against it or do you need
Simon Marlow wrote:
Peter Hercek wrote:
As for as the rest of the message. Those are possible bugs.
If I can reduce them to few tens of lines of a test, I'll
post the bug reports. I use Archlinux and the last (non-testing)
version of ghc there is ghc-6.8.2. Do you accept bug reports
Peter Hercek wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
We thought about this when working on the debugger, and the problem is
that to make the debugger retain all the variables that are in scope
rather than just free in the expression adds a lot of overhead, and it
fundamentally changes the structure of the
Peter Hercek wrote:
May be my approach to debugging with ghci is wrong
but in about half of the time I find ghci (as a
debugger) almost useless. The reason is the limited
way it can resolve identifiers. I can examine
the free variables in the selected expression and
nothing else. Well, I
Simon Marlow wrote:
We thought about this when working on the debugger, and the problem is
that to make the debugger retain all the variables that are in scope
rather than just free in the expression adds a lot of overhead, and it
fundamentally changes the structure of the generated code:
May be my approach to debugging with ghci is wrong
but in about half of the time I find ghci (as a
debugger) almost useless. The reason is the limited
way it can resolve identifiers. I can examine
the free variables in the selected expression and
nothing else. Well, I *think* just sometimes