Jonathan Gray <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 12:07:31PM -0800, Greg Steuck wrote: >> Ingo Schwarze <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Hi Todd, >> > >> > in view of your arguments and sthen@'s OK, i'm also OK with this >> > going in. I think a bit of code cleanup and copy editing in the >> > manual page may be useful afterwards, but that can be done in the >> > tree, no need for playing patch ping pong. >> >> I noticed that despite the OKs the code didn't submitted. Should we >> revive this diff now and continue in the tree? >> >> I have vested interest: I don't want to fix up lang/ghc test suite which >> is full of seq(1). >> >> Thanks >> Greg > > here is a port of the plan 9 seq from the last time this came up
This implementation is sufficient for my testing of ghc. So, if this is the easiest variant to commit, I'll take it. The FreeBSD version has the advantage of being more widespread due to its derivatives shipping that code. This may be an argument in favor. Thanks Greg
