On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:46:38PM +1100, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote: > Thanks for writing the patch. Nobody assumed you did that for no > reason. However, a patch that fixes one and breaks another > architecture ultimately does not fix the problem. From what you are > writing, it doesn't even seem to be clear that the patch does fix > NetBSD - as you haven't got a NetBSD box.
It wasn't the purpose of the patch to fix the NetBSD problem mentioned on glasgow-haskell-users. The purpose was to help finding potential errors in locking/unlocking as soon as they happen. > Generally, patches that are potentially architecture dependent, should > be tested on multiple architectures before being committed: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/TestingPatches I'm sure Simon did test it before pushing. But aparently not on MacOS X. Ciao, Kili _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
