On 22 September 2010 01:32, Manuel M T Chakravarty <c...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>> Manuel: would you like to talk to Ben, Gabi, Roman, and decide what you'd >> like us to do for the release. Specifically: >> >> - Release with DPH, or rely on 'cabal install dph'? >> - Push the new refactoring into the branch; or not? > > Below I attach a summary of our Tuesday Skype call. I would like to stick to > the plan that we formulated during that call — that is: > > * Release 7.0 including DPH using the new library that is based on vector. Can I make another suggestion for a way to let ghc ship vector etc without needing to put vector through the HP package proposal process: put all the dph "backend" libs into a separate package database and make -fvectorise imply not just -package blah but also the appropriate -package-conf flag. That way the backend packages are simply not visible for normal code but if you use -fvectorise then they become available. (Maybe -fvectorise is not the right choice of flag, maybe it needs to be -XPArr or something). Whether this works smoothly depends on the details of the relationship between dph flags, packages and dph module imports. Duncan _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
