Well for new features like this (rather than bug fix), I'd prefer if I could get commit access and at least push it to a branch.  I can create a new trac ticket too. 

On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Carter Schonwald wrote:

took a quick look,  awesome! this will make it MUCH MUCH easier for me to do my work. Thank you very much. 

off hand, to prevent patch confusion,

 it naively seems like the nicest way to post the patches to trac is to post a new ticket to trac that links to the main one,

 plus add a comment on the main ticket a link to the new ticket for the c/cmm based versions of the primops.

 At least, given that theres likely going to be a bit of discussion on just your ticket perhaps, better to factor that into a related ticket to make it easier to keep track of that?

(i'm also possibly over thinking this enormously, so i could be way off base)

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

nvm, githubs backup, i'll have a look! :)

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

awesome! (this will also make my work easier)

ryan: github is down, could you put the branch on bitbucket or some such so I can have a lookseee/clone locally?

thanks!

-Carter

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton@gmail.com> wrote:

Just to keep you all up to date...  I'm adding the primops in question and validating the individual commits before putting them here:

    https://github.com/rrnewton/ghc/commits/atomicPrimOps

The basic idea for using these extensions is:

• the atomic-primops library will work in 7.6 or 7.7+.  It will use ifdefs to decide whether to use its own primops or GHC-builtin
• future versions will simply get faster, as Carter replaces out-of-line primops that *also* use C calls, with inline primops / LLVM equivalents

Shall I stick a patch on a ticket, or will someone volunteer to pull?  What's the protocol for requesting commit access anyway?  (By the way, can someone share the reason that pull-requests to the github ghc mirror are such a no-no?  They seem no worse than a patch in an email which the big warning sign recommends.)

Best,

  -Ryan

P.S. FYI, I'm periodically getting these: 

   0 caused framework failures

   0 unexpected passes

   1 unexpected failures

     Unexpected failures:

perf/compiler  T1969 [stat not good enough] (normal)

Can that just be because of running on a loaded machine?  How narrow are these windows?

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

ok, could you add those comments (about additional operations to consider) to the ticket?

Sure.  Just did that.

 

relatedly: if we want these atomic ops to use the sequential analogues when we're not using the threaded run time system, does that mean 

we need to have a symbol / constant variable exposed in the RTS we link in, so that the inline code branches on a linktime constant value / symbol (something like "isThreadedRTS:: Bool", )  or some sort of analogue thereof?  

<

--
Sent from Gmail Mobile