June 2019 - ghc-devs - Haskell.org

The future of Phabricator
by Ben Gamari 18 Sep '21

18 Sep '21

TL;DR. For several reasons I think we should consider alternatives to Phabricator. My view is that GitLab seems like the best option. Hello everyone, Over the past year I have been growing increasingly weary of our continued dependence on Phabricator. Without a doubt, its code review interface is the best I have used. However, for a myriad of reasons I am recently questioning whether it is still the best tool for GHC's needs. # The problem There are a number of reasons why I am currently uncertain about Phabricator. For one, at this point we have no options for support in the event that something goes wrong as the company responsible for Phabricator, Phacility, has closed their support channels to non-paying customers. Furthermore, in the past year or two Phacility has been placing their development resources in the parts their customers pay them for, which appear to be much different that the parts that we actively use. For this reason, some parts that we rely on seem oddly half-finished. This concern was recently underscored by some rather unfortunate misfeatures in Harbormaster which resulted in broken CI after the Hadrian merge and now apparent bugs which have made it difficult to migrate to the CircleCI integration we previously prepared. Perhaps most importantly, in our recent development priorities survey our use of Phabricator was the most common complaint by a fair margin, both in case of respondents who have contributed patches and those who have not. On the whole, past contributors and potential future contributors alike have strongly indicated that they want a more Git-like experience. Of course, this wasn't terribly surprising; this is just the most recent case where contributors have made this preference known. Frankly, in a sense it is hard to blame them. The fact that users need to install a PHP tool, Arcanist, to contribute anything but documentation patches has always seemed like unnecessary friction to me and I would be quite happy to be rid of it. Indeed we have had a quite healthy number of GitHub documentation patches since we started accepting them. This makes me thing that there may indeed be potential contributoes that we are leaving on the table. # What to do With Rackspace support ending at the end of year, now may be a good time to consider whether we really want to continue on this road. Phabricator is great at code review but I am less and less certain that it is worth the maintenance uncertainty and potential lost contributors that it costs. Moreover, good alternatives seem closer at-hand than they were when we deployed Phabricator. ## Move to GitHub When people complain about our infrastructure, they often use GitHub as the example of what they would like to see. However, realistically I have a hard time seeing GitHub as a viable option. Its feature set is simply insufficient enough to handle the needs of a larger project like GHC without significant external tooling (as seen in the case of Rust-lang). The concrete reasons have been well-documented in previous discussions but, to summarize, * its review functionality is extremely painful to use with larger patches * rebased patches lead to extreme confusion and lost review comments * it lacks support for pre-receive hooks, which serve as a last line of defense to prevent unintended submodule changes * its inability to deal with external tickets is problematic * there is essentially no possibility that we could eventually migrate GHC's tickets to GitHub's ticket tracker without considerable data loss (much less manage the ticket load that would result), meaning that we would forever be stuck with maintaining Trac. * on a personal note, its search functionality has often left me empty-handed On the whole, these issues seem pretty hard to surmount. ## Move to GitLab In using GitLab for another project over the past months I have been positively surprised by its quality. It handles rebased merge requests far better than GitHub, has functional search, and quite a usable review interface. Furthermore, upstream has been extremely responsive to suggestions for improvement [1]. Even out-of-the-box it seems to be flexible enough to accommodate our needs, supporting integration with external issue trackers, having reasonable release management features, and support for code owners to automate review triaging (replacing much of the functionality of Phabricator's Herald). Finally, other FOSS projects' [3] recent migrations from Phabrictor to GitLab have shown that GitLab-the-company is quite willing to offer help when needed. I took some time this weekend to try setting up a quick GHC instance [2] to play around with. Even after just a few hours of playing around I think the result is surprisingly usable. Out of curiosity I also played around with importing some tickets from Trac (building on Matt Pickering's Trac-to-Maniphest migration tool). With relatively little effort I was even able to get nearly all of our tickets (as of 9 months ago) imported while preserving ticket numbers (although there are naturally a few wrinkles that would need to be worked out). Naturally, I think we should treat the question of ticket tracker migration as an orthogonal one to code review, but it is good to know that this is possible. ## Continue with Phabricator Continuing with Phabricator is of course an option. Its review functionality is great and it has served us reasonably well. However, compared to GitLab and even GitHub of today its features seem less distinguished than they once did. Moreover, the prospect of having to maintain a largely stagnant product with no support strikes me as a slightly dangerous game to play. Working around the issues we have recently encountered has already cost a non-negligible amount of time. # The bottom line If it wasn't clear already, I think that we should strongly consider a move to GitLab. At this point it seems clear that it isn't going to vanish, has a steady pace of development, is featureful, and available. However, these are just my thoughts. What do you think? Cheers, - Ben [1] 11.4 will ship with a file tree view in the code review interface, which I reported (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/46474) as being is one of the Phabricator features I missed the most during review [2] https://gitlab.home.smart-cactus.org/ghc/ghc/issues/14641 [3] The GNOME and freedesktop.org projects have recently migrated, the former from a hodge-podge of self-hosted services and the latter from Phabricator

17 40

Residency profiles
by Simon Peyton Jones 23 Jan '20

23 Jan '20

Simon, Ben, Omer As you'll see in comments 55-72 of https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9476, Sebastian has been a bit flummoxed by the task of measure residency profiles; that is, how much data is truly live during execution. A major GC measures that, but we are vulnerable to exactly when it happens (even with -G1) and that can lead to irreproducible results. I think what we want is a way to trigger GC at very regular intervals, after (say) each 10kbytes or 100kbytes or 1Mbyte of allocation. That might be expensive, but we'd get reproducible results. I don't think that is possible right now - see the ticket - but it would be easy enough to do wouldn't it? Just give only 10k or 100k or 1M to the allocator when setting it running again. Would you consider this? Or are we just missing something obvious? Needless to say, we want to do all this with full optimisation on, no cost-centre profiling. Thanks Simon

4 8

[ANNOUNCE] GHC 8.8.1-alpha2 is now available
by Ben Gamari 12 Dec '19

12 Dec '19

Hello everyone, The GHC team is pleased to announce the second and likely last alpha release of GHC 8.8.1. The source distribution, binary distributions, and documentation are available at https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/8.8.1-alpha2 A draft of the release notes is also available [1]. This release is the culmination of over 3000 commits by over one hundred contributors and has several new features and numerous bug fixes relative to GHC 8.6: * Profiling now works correctly on 64-bit Windows (although still may be problematic on 32-bit Windows due to platform limitations; see #15934) * A new code layout algorithm for amd64's native code generator * The introduction of a late lambda-lifting pass which may reduce allocations significantly for some programs. * Further work on Trees That Grow, enabling improved code re-use of the Haskell AST in tooling * More locations where users can write `forall` (GHC Proposal #0007) * Further work on the Hadrian build system This release brings a number of fixes since alpha 1: * A number of linker fixes (#16779, #16784) * The process, binary, Cabal, time, terminfo libraries have all been bumped to their final release versions * A regression rendering TemplateHaskell unusable in cross-compiled configurations has been fixed (#16331) * A regression causing compiler panics on compilation of some programs has been fixed (#16449) * -Wmissing-home-modules now handles hs-boot files correctly (#16551) * A regression causing some programs to fail at runtime has been fixed (#16066) Due to on-going work on our release and testing infrastructure this cycle is proceeding at a pace significantly slower than expected. However, we anticipate that this investment will allow us to release a more reliable, easier-to-install compiler on the planned six-month release cadence in the future. As always, if anything looks amiss do let us know. Happy compiling! Cheers, - Ben [1] https://downloads.haskell.org/ghc/8.8.1-alpha2/docs/html/users_guide/8.8.1-…

8 18

GHC's module hierarchy
by Simon Peyton Jones 02 Oct '19

02 Oct '19

Dear ghc-devs hsyl20 proposes a radical overhaul of the module structure of GHC itself. He or she suggested it six months ago in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13009 and has now offered a monster patch https://phabricator.haskell.org/D3647 It's clearly the result of a lot of work, but I was the only one who responded on the original ticket, and it'll affect all of your lives in a very immediate way. So, would you like to * consider the idea * look at the actual re-mapping of modules hsyl20 proposals * express an opinion about whether to go ahead Probably the ticket, rather than Phab, is the best place to comment on the general idea. I'd like to thank hsyl20. GHC's rather flat module structure has grown incrementally over years. But still, there are pros and cons. Simon

2 1

Min closure payload size?
by Ömer Sinan Ağacan 11 Sep '19

11 Sep '19

Hi, I was trying to understand why some info tables that have no ptrs and nptrs like GCD_CAF end up with 1 nptrs in the generated info table and found this code in Constants.h: /* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minimum closure sizes This is the minimum number of words in the payload of a heap-allocated closure, so that the closure has enough room to be overwritten with a forwarding pointer during garbage collection. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ #define MIN_PAYLOAD_SIZE 1 We use this in a few places in the compiler and add at least one word space in the payload. However the comment is actually wrong, forwarding pointers are made by tagging the info ptr field so we don't need a word in the payload for forwarding pointers. I tried updating this as 0 but that caused a lot of test failures (mostly in GHCi). I'm wondering if I'm missing anything or is it just some code assuming min payload size 1 without using this macro. Any ideas? Ömer

3 6

How do I find out which info table a continuation belongs to?
by Ömer Sinan Ağacan 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

I'm currently working on a bug and one of the things I often want to know is what's on the stack. The problem is I can't see labels of continuations so the information is really useless. Example: >>> call printStack(((StgTSO*)0x42000e0198)->stackobj) 0x42000c8788: RET_SMALL (0x512d70) 0x42000c8790: RET_SMALL (0x40edf0) stk[5] (0x42000c8798) = 0x7b3938 0x42000c87a0: CATCH_FRAME(0x735a98,0x7d3ff2) 0x42000c87b8: STOP_FRAME(0x7311b8) (I modified the printer to print stack locations when printing stacks) Here I need to know which info table the RET_SMALLs return to. Normally I do this for other kinds of closures: >>> print ((StgClosure*)...)->header.info $15 = (const StgInfoTable *) 0x404dc0 <Main_nats_info> But for continuations that doesn't work: >>> print ((StgClosure*)0x42000c8788)->header.info $11 = (const StgInfoTable *) 0x512d80 >>> info symbol 0x512d80 No symbol matches 0x512d80. Anyone know how to make this work? Can I maybe mark the continuations label in the generated assembly somehow to make those labels available in gdb? Thanks Ömer

2 3

Any ways to test a GHC build against large set of packages (including test suites)?
by Ömer Sinan Ağacan 25 Jul '19

25 Jul '19

Hi, I'd like to test some GHC builds + some compile and runtime flag combinations against a large set of packages by building them and running test suites. For this I need - A set of packages that are known to work with latest GHC - A way to build them and run their test suites (if I could specify compile and runtime flags that'd be even better) I think stackage can serve as (1) but I don't know how to do (2). Can anyone point me to the right direction? I vaguely remember some nix-based solution for this that was being discussed on the IRC channel, but can't recall any details. Thanks, Ömer

9 15

Guarded Impredicativity
by Alejandro Serrano Mena 04 Jul '19

04 Jul '19

Dear all, We are trying to bring back `ImpredicativeTypes` into GHC by using the ideas in the "Guarded Impredicative Polymorphism" paper [ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/guarded-impredicative-… ]. For now I have produced a first attempt, which lives in https://gitlab.haskell.org/trupill/ghc. It would be great if those interested in impredicative polymorphism could give it a try and see whether it works as expected or not. The main idea behing "guarded impredicativity" is that you can infer an impredicative instantiation for a type variable in a function call if you have at least one given argument where that type variable appears under a type constructor different from (->). For example, consider the call `(\x -> x) : ids`, where `ids :: [forall a. a -> a]`. Since in the type of `(:)`, namely `forall a. a -> [a] -> [a]`, the variable `a` appears under the `[]` constructor and that second argument is given, we are allowed to instantiate `a := forall a. a -> a`. On the other hand, if we try to do `ids <> ids`, where `(<>)` is monoid concatenation with type `forall m. Monoid m => m -> m -> m`, we are forced to instantiate `m` with a not-polymorphic type because at no point the variable appears under a type constructor. Just for reference, the best to get a working clone is to follow these steps: > git clone --recursive https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc impredicative-ghc > cd impredicative-ghc > git remote add trupill git@gitlab.haskell.org:trupill/ghc.git > git fetch trupill > git checkout trupill master Thanks very much in advance, Alejandro

5 11

Workflow question (changing codegen)
by Ömer Sinan Ağacan 01 Jul '19

01 Jul '19

Hi all, I'm currently going through this torturous process and I'm hoping that someone here will be able to help. I'm making changes in the codegen. My changes are currently buggy, and I need a working stage 1 compiler to be able to debug. Basically I need to build libraries using the branch my changes are based on, then build stage 1 with my branch, so that I'll be able to build and run programs using stage 1 that uses my codegen changes. The changes are compatible with the old codegen (i.e. no changes in calling conventions or anything like that) so this should work. Normally I do this $ git checkout master $ git distclean && ./boot && ./configure && make $ git checkout my_branch $ cd compiler; make 1 This gives me stage 1 compiler that uses my buggy codegen changes, plus libraries built with the old and correct codegen. However the problem is I'm also adding a new file in my_branch, and the build system just doesn't register that fact, even after adding the line I added to compiler/ghc.cabal.in to compiler/ghc.cabal. So far the only way to fix this that I could find was to run ./configure again, then run make for a few seconds at the top level, then do `make 1` in compiler/. Unfortunately even that doesn't work when the master branch and my_branch have different dates, because `make` in master branch produces a different version than the `make` in my_branch, so the interface files become incompatible. Anyone have any ideas on how to proceed here? Thanks, Ömer

4 7

Re: Vector registers assumed to be caller or callee-saved?
by Andreas Klebinger 30 Jun '19

30 Jun '19

What you want is not the macro but this function: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/ghc-8.6.5/docs/src/X86.Regs.html#callCl… whose results depend on the System ABI. Cheers, Andreas > Hi all, > > I'm wondering what GHC assumes about vector registers XMMi, YMMi, and ZMMi used > by the STG machine: are those assumed to be caller or callee-saved? Only for > the x86-64 architecture there exist macro definitions like CALLER_SAVES_XMM1 in > includes/stg/MachRegs.h. However, I cannot find any other place where those > macros are used. AFAIK most C ABIs assume that vector registers are call > clobbered. Is this also the case for GHC? > > Many thanks in advance, > Stefan >

2 2