- ghc-devs - Haskell.org

Re: cvs-ghc archives
by Gershom B 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

You can also get cvs-ghc specific mail at: https://www.mail-archive.com/cvs-ghc=40haskell.org/ Note: We still have the old list archives. It looks like the list itself = was deleted on mailman when the old cvs- lists were decomissioned so as t= o prevent confusion. I think they=E2=80=99ve been inaccessable for years = so it doesn=E2=80=99t seem like its a pressing concern=3F That said, we c= an look into hosting the archives with a redirect on archives.haskell.org= . Cheers, Gershom On September 28, 2017 at 8:32:26 AM, ghc-devs-request=40haskell.org (ghc-= devs-request=40haskell.org) wrote: > Send ghc-devs mailing list submissions to > ghc-devs=40haskell.org > =20 > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ghc-devs-request=40haskell.org > =20 > You can reach the person managing the list at > ghc-devs-owner=40haskell.org > =20 > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than =22Re: Contents of ghc-devs digest...=22 > =20 > =20 > Today's Topics: > =20 > 1. Re: cvs-ghc archives (Bartosz Nitka) > =20 > =20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > =20 > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:07:43 +0100 > =46rom: Bartosz Nitka =20 > To: ghc-devs Devs =20 > Subject: Re: cvs-ghc archives > Message-ID: > =20 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D=22UT=46-8=22 > =20 > I think someone has archived the data for us here > https://www.mail-archive.com/cvs-all=40haskell.org/. > I don't have a good way to map the old links to new ones, though. > =20 > 2017-09-28 11:01 GMT+01:00 Bartosz Nitka : > > Hello, > > > > I was reading a comment that pointed to > > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2007-September/038458.html. > > It's a dead link and I couldn't find any place where cvs-ghc is archi= ved. > > I've tried webarchive. > > > > Looks like Simon had a simliar problem 4 years ago: > > http://ghc-devs.haskell.narkive.com/3dIDGsHy/cvs-ghc-archives > > > > Is the data forever lost=3F > > > > There aren't actually that many references in the source tree: > > ./libraries/base/configure.ac:=23 See > > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2011-September/065980.html > > ./libraries/base/configure:=23 See > > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2011-September/065980.html > > ./libraries/base/autom4te.cache/output.0:=23 See > > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2011-September/065980.html > > ./rts/linker/Elf.c: * See thread > > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2007-September/038458.html > > ./rts/Linker.c: // see > > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2007-September/038570.html > > ./testsuite/tests/typecheck/should=5Ffail/tcfail201.hs:-- > > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2008-June/043173.html > > > > I'm happy to remove them if that's what we want to do. > > > > Coincidentally cvs-ghc=40haskell.org appears 58 times in the GHC sour= ce > > tree. Do we want to keep using it=3F > > > > Thanks, > > Bartosz > =20 > =20 > ------------------------------ > =20 > Subject: Digest =46ooter > =20 > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs=40haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > =20 > =20 > ------------------------------ > =20 > End of ghc-devs Digest, Vol 169, Issue 60 > ***************************************** > =20

1 0

cvs-ghc archives
by Bartosz Nitka 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

Hello, I was reading a comment that pointed to http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2007-September/038458.html. It's a dead link and I couldn't find any place where cvs-ghc is archived. I've tried webarchive. Looks like Simon had a simliar problem 4 years ago: http://ghc-devs.haskell.narkive.com/3dIDGsHy/cvs-ghc-archives Is the data forever lost? There aren't actually that many references in the source tree: ./libraries/base/configure.ac:# See http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2011-September/065980.html ./libraries/base/configure:# See http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2011-September/065980.html ./libraries/base/autom4te.cache/output.0:# See http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2011-September/065980.html ./rts/linker/Elf.c: * See thread http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2007-September/038458.html ./rts/Linker.c: // see http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2007-September/038570.html ./testsuite/tests/typecheck/should_fail/tcfail201.hs:-- http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2008-June/043173.html I'm happy to remove them if that's what we want to do. Coincidentally cvs-ghc(a)haskell.org appears 58 times in the GHC source tree. Do we want to keep using it? Thanks, Bartosz

1 1

Review of CONTRIBUTORS.md
by Ben Gamari 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

Hello everyone, Today I sat down and wrote a CONTRIBUTORS.md document for the ghc repository. This is recommended by GitHub to ensure that contributors can easily discover the first steps to contributing to the project. Moreover, it provided a nice blank slate to summarize the existing contributor documentation. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give it [1] a read-through and leave your feedback. Cheers, - Ben [1] https://phabricator.haskell.org/D4037 https://github.com/bgamari/ghc/blob/contributing/CONTRIBUTING.md

2 3

Re: Including libffi as a submodule
by David Feuer 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

Sorry; wasn't thinking straight! David FeuerWell-Typed, LLP -------- Original message --------From: "Boespflug, Mathieu" <m(a)tweag.io> Date: 9/28/17 3:56 AM (GMT-05:00) To: David Feuer <david(a)well-typed.com> Cc: ghc-devs <ghc-devs(a)haskell.org> Subject: Re: Including libffi as a submodule Aren't we talking about the C project here? https://sourceware.org/libffi/ -- Mathieu Boespflug Founder at http://tweag.io. On 28 September 2017 at 06:27, David Feuer <david(a)well-typed.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:38:11 PM EDT Ben Gamari wrote: > >> Numerous attempts have >> been made to get the libffi maintainers to cut a new release but sadly >> no progress has been made in over six months of trying. > > Has anyone followed the process described in the somewhat poorly named > https://wiki.haskell.org/Taking_over_a_package to try to add one or more > maintainers upstream? If the current maintainer(s) object to that, would it make > sense to produce a proper fork on Hackage? > > David > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs(a)haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

1 0

Including libffi as a submodule
by Ben Gamari 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

Hello everyone, As you may know, GHC carries a dependency on the libffi library. Libffi is used on most platforms (notably not x86 and x86-64) for foreign function invocation (see rts/Adjustor.c for details). While libffi works well, it is unfortunately not particularly actively maintained. In fact, it has been nearly three years since the last official release. A lot can happen in three years and there is now at least two bugs [1,2] present in the current release which makes it impossible to build GHC in some configurations. These bugs have been fixed upstream but these fixes are unreleased. Numerous attempts have been made to get the libffi maintainers to cut a new release but sadly no progress has been made in over six months of trying. In light of this I propose that we begin treating libffi as a submodule until a release is made. In particular, adding libffi as a submodule will ease development on ARM and AArch64 (especially Apple) targets, which have seen quite a bit of developer attention recently. Note that under this scheme it will still be possible to link against the system's libffi installation using ./configure's --enable-system-libffi flag. Are there any strong objections to plan? If so please speak up. If there is no objection by Saturday we will move ahead. Cheers, - Ben [1] https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues/191 [2] https://github.com/libffi/libffi/pull/263

5 5

Re: [GHC] #14294: IndexError: pop from empty list
by Gabor Greif 27 Sep '17

27 Sep '17

Right. On 9/27/17, GHC <ghc-devs(a)haskell.org> wrote: > #14294: IndexError: pop from empty list > -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- > Reporter: heisenbug | Owner: (none) > Type: bug | Status: new > Priority: normal | Milestone: > Component: Compiler | Version: 8.2.1 > Resolution: | Keywords: > Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: > | Unknown/Multiple > Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: > Blocked By: | Blocking: > Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s): > Wiki Page: | > -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- > > Comment (by bgamari): > > Was the URL you were requesting > https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/attachment/ticket/14293/ ? > > -- > Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/14294#comment:2> > GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> > The Glasgow Haskell Compiler >

1 0

Re: ghc-devs Digest, Vol 169, Issue 57
by Michael Baikov 26 Sep '17

26 Sep '17

> I, too, have wished for the ability to have a separator in large number literals. > > So a strong +1 from me. more +1 here

1 0

New primitive types?
by Michal Terepeta 26 Sep '17

26 Sep '17

Hi all, I'm working on making it possible to pack constructor fields [1], example: ``` data Foo = Foo {-# UNPACK #-} !Float {-# UNPACK #-} !Int32 ``` should only require 4 bytes for unpacked `Float` and 4 bytes for unpacked `Int32`, which on 64-bit arch would take just 1 word (instead of 2 it currently does). The diff to support packing of fields is in review [2], but to really take advantage of it I think we need to introduce new primitive types: - Int{8,16,32}# - Word{8,16,32}# along with some corresponding primops and with some other follow-up changes like extending `PrimRep`. Then we could use them in definitions of `Int{8,16,32}` and `Word{8,16,32}` (they're currently just wrapping `Int#` and `Word#`). Does that sound ok with everyone? (just making sure that this makes sense before I invest more time into this :) Thanks, Michal [1] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13825 [2] https://phabricator.haskell.org/D3809

4 9

Re: Why isn't this Typeable?
by Richard Eisenberg 25 Sep '17

25 Sep '17

I think we're a long way off from supporting Typeable for higher-kinded types, so I wouldn't worry about that dark, spider-ridden corner. Richard > On Sep 25, 2017, at 3:00 PM, David Feuer <david(a)well-typed.com> wrote: > > No. What led me down this path is that I was thinking about whether we could simplify the representation and reduce the TCB. The as-yet-incomplete ideas I had (largely based on the concept of using a constructor name as a singletons-style defunctionalization symbol) seem difficult to adapt to the generalization I describe, so I wanted to check first how much that matters. > > > David Feuer > Well-Typed, LLP > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Richard Eisenberg <rae(a)cs.brynmawr.edu> > Date: 9/25/17 2:42 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: David Feuer <david(a)well-typed.com> > Cc: Ben Gamari <ben(a)smart-cactus.org>, ghc-devs(a)haskell.org > Subject: Re: Why isn't this Typeable? > > I suppose this is conceivable, but it would complicate the representation and solver for TypeReps considerably. Do you have a real use case? > > Richard > > > On Sep 25, 2017, at 2:28 PM, David Feuer <david(a)well-typed.com> wrote: > > > > My example wasn't quite the one I intended (although I think it should > > work as well, and it's simpler). Here's the sort of example I really intended: > > > > data Bar :: forall (j :: forall k. k -> Maybe k) (a :: Type). Proxy (j a) -> Type > > > > I would expect > > > > Bar :: Proxy ('Just Int) -> Type > > > > or, to abuse notation a bit, > > > > Bar @'Just @Int > > > > to be Typeable. What I'm really suggesting is that we should distinguish between things that are typeable and > > things that can be decomposed into typeable components. We already make a limited distinction > > here. For example, we have > > > > 'Just :: forall a. a -> Maybe a > > > > 'Just itself cannot be Typeable, but once it's applied to a kind variable, it is Typeable. > > 'Just @Int is Typeable even though that (kind) application cannot be broken with App. Similarly, I'd expect > > Foo 'Just to be Typeable even though that (type) application cannot be broken with App (or Fun). > > > > Putting things in terms of fingerprints, we can offer type-indexed fingerprints > > > > newtype Finger a = Finger Fingerprint > > > > for anything we can fingerprint. Is there any difficulty fingerprinting types like Foo 'Just and > > Bar @'Just @Int? Fingerprints are useful for lots of applications where decomposition isn't > > necessary. > > > > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 1:16:37 PM EDT Richard Eisenberg wrote: > >> The problem is that to get Typeable (Foo 'Just), we need Typeable 'Just. However, the kind parameter for Typeable 'Just would be (forall a. a -> Maybe a), making the full constraint Typable (forall a. a -> Maybe a) 'Just. And saying that would be impredicative. In other contexts, 'Just *can* be Typeable, but it's 'Just invisibly instantiated at some monotype for `a`. > >> > >> So I think that this boils down to impredicativity and that the implementation is doing the right thing here. > >> > >> Richard > >> > >>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 5:45 AM, David Feuer <david(a)well-typed.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> data Foo :: (forall a. a -> Maybe a) -> Type > >>> > >>> Neither Foo nor Foo 'Just is Typeable. There seems to be a certain sense to excluding Foo proper, because it can't be decomposed with Fun. But why not Foo 'Just? Is there a fundamental reason, or is that largely an implementation artifact? > >>> > >>> David Feuer > >>> Well-Typed, LLP > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ghc-devs mailing list > >>> ghc-devs(a)haskell.org > >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >> > > > > >

1 0

Re: Why isn't this Typeable?
by David Feuer 25 Sep '17

25 Sep '17

No. What led me down this path is that I was thinking about whether we could simplify the representation and reduce the TCB. The as-yet-incomplete ideas I had (largely based on the concept of using a constructor name as a singletons-style defunctionalization symbol) seem difficult to adapt to the generalization I describe, so I wanted to check first how much that matters. David FeuerWell-Typed, LLP -------- Original message --------From: Richard Eisenberg <rae(a)cs.brynmawr.edu> Date: 9/25/17 2:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: David Feuer <david(a)well-typed.com> Cc: Ben Gamari <ben(a)smart-cactus.org>, ghc-devs(a)haskell.org Subject: Re: Why isn't this Typeable? I suppose this is conceivable, but it would complicate the representation and solver for TypeReps considerably. Do you have a real use case? Richard > On Sep 25, 2017, at 2:28 PM, David Feuer <david(a)well-typed.com> wrote: > > My example wasn't quite the one I intended (although I think it should > work as well, and it's simpler). Here's the sort of example I really intended: > > data Bar :: forall (j :: forall k. k -> Maybe k) (a :: Type). Proxy (j a) -> Type > > I would expect > > Bar :: Proxy ('Just Int) -> Type > > or, to abuse notation a bit, > > Bar @'Just @Int > > to be Typeable. What I'm really suggesting is that we should distinguish between things that are typeable and > things that can be decomposed into typeable components. We already make a limited distinction > here. For example, we have > > 'Just :: forall a. a -> Maybe a > > 'Just itself cannot be Typeable, but once it's applied to a kind variable, it is Typeable. > 'Just @Int is Typeable even though that (kind) application cannot be broken with App. Similarly, I'd expect > Foo 'Just to be Typeable even though that (type) application cannot be broken with App (or Fun). > > Putting things in terms of fingerprints, we can offer type-indexed fingerprints > > newtype Finger a = Finger Fingerprint > > for anything we can fingerprint. Is there any difficulty fingerprinting types like Foo 'Just and > Bar @'Just @Int? Fingerprints are useful for lots of applications where decomposition isn't > necessary. > > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 1:16:37 PM EDT Richard Eisenberg wrote: >> The problem is that to get Typeable (Foo 'Just), we need Typeable 'Just. However, the kind parameter for Typeable 'Just would be (forall a. a -> Maybe a), making the full constraint Typable (forall a. a -> Maybe a) 'Just. And saying that would be impredicative. In other contexts, 'Just *can* be Typeable, but it's 'Just invisibly instantiated at some monotype for `a`. >> >> So I think that this boils down to impredicativity and that the implementation is doing the right thing here. >> >> Richard >> >>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 5:45 AM, David Feuer <david(a)well-typed.com> wrote: >>> >>> data Foo :: (forall a. a -> Maybe a) -> Type >>> >>> Neither Foo nor Foo 'Just is Typeable. There seems to be a certain sense to excluding Foo proper, because it can't be decomposed with Fun. But why not Foo 'Just? Is there a fundamental reason, or is that largely an implementation artifact? >>> >>> David Feuer >>> Well-Typed, LLP >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ghc-devs mailing list >>> ghc-devs(a)haskell.org >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> > >

1 0