Re: vectorisation code?

I didn't mean to suggest that DPH should be part of every build, just that it should be part of *some* regular build. If we're willing to do that, then I'm certainly willing to get DPH back up and running. Geoff On 01/22/2016 11:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

Making it part of *every* validate is a big ask because it takes so long to build.

But we already have "sh validate --slow", which runs a lot more tests than --fast. So maybe it could be part of --slow?

And I do think that we should have a nightly build (although perhaps not the continuous-integration build-every-commit stuff) that runs the full testsuite. I don't think that happens right now. But it should.

That might resolve the "painful to add DPH to validate" problem.

Simon

| -----Original Message----- | From: Geoffrey Mainland [mailto:mainland@apeiron.net] | Sent: 22 January 2016 14:58 | To: Thomas Miedema | Cc: Ben Gamari ; Manuel M T Chakravarty | ; Simon Peyton Jones ; | ghc-devs@haskell.org | Subject: Re: vectorisation code? | | On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:23:56PM +0100, Thomas Miedema wrote: | > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Geoffrey Mainland | wrote: | >> On 1/22/16 8:05 AM, Ben Gamari wrote: | >>> Manuel M T Chakravarty writes: | >>>> The way I see it, the main cost of keeping DPH around is to | handle | >>>> breakages such as that with vector. I can't promise to address | >>>> those in a timely manner, which is why I agreed to disable/remove | DPH. | >>>> However, as Geoff stepped forward, this issue is solved. As for | the | >>>> overhead in compile time etc, I don't think, it is that much of a | >>>> deal. During development, most compiles runs are incremental | anyway. | >>> | >>> Judging by the VCS history it seems that nothing happened in | >>> response to this thread. Geoff, do you see yourself having time to | >>> pick this up in the near future? If not, perhaps we should pick up | >>> this matter again and seriously consider parking this code in a | >>> branch until someone is able to pick it up again. | >>> Cheers, | >>> - Ben | >> | >> Yes, I am willing to do the work to get DPH back into the build in | >> the near future. However, that only makes sense if we are willing | to | >> build DPH regularly. Also, I can't be solely responsible for all | >> breakage resulting from DPH; DPH has regularly exposed bugs in the | >> past, which is one reason to get it back into the regular build, | but | >> I can't promise to fix all problems that might be exposed by DPH in | >> the future :) | >> | >> If I put a patch on Phab that updates DPH, are we willing to make | DPH | >> part of the regular validation script again? | >> | >> Cheers, | >> Geoff | > | > We could make all of hackage be part of the ghc build, and it would | > turn up bugs. But we don't do that either. Why is dph special? | | Manuel and Simon can say more, but DPH has in the past been very good | at exposing, for example, regressions in the inliner. It exercises GHC | in a way that few other packages do. | | DPH is intimately tied to GHC, so it's not something that can be | maintained separately as a package. If we aren't willing to make DPH | part of the regular build, then it will just bitrot again quickly, and | there's little point in doing the work to get it running again. | | I'm of the opinion that DPH still has value and that it would be a | shame to lose it forever, which is effectively what will happen if we | relegate the vectorizer to a branch. I am willing to get DPH working | again, but only if there is general agreement that DPH is worth | having---and that we are willing to once again make it part of the | regular build. | | Geoff _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs