[nightly] 14-Apr-2008 build of STABLE on i386-unknown-linux (cam-02-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com)

2008-04-14 Thread GHC Build Reports
Build description = STABLE on i386-unknown-linux (cam-02-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com) Build location= /playpen/simonmar/nightly/STABLE Build config file = /home/simonmar/nightly/site/msrc/conf-STABLE-cam-02-unx Nightly build started on cam-02-unx at Mon Apr 14 18:10:01 BST 2008. checki

patch applied (ghc): FIX BUILD (Windows): Copy the ln trick used by the GMP build

2008-04-14 Thread Simon Marlow
Mon Apr 14 10:32:25 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * FIX BUILD (Windows): Copy the ln trick used by the GMP build M ./libffi/Makefile -2 +7 A ./libffi/ln View patch online: http://darcs.haskell.org/ghc/_darcs/patches/20080414173225-760e2-a090d82c73d8709311350db23150312035927

[nightly] 14-Apr-2008 build of HEAD on i386-unknown-linux (cam-02-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com)

2008-04-14 Thread GHC Build Reports
Build description = HEAD on i386-unknown-linux (cam-02-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com) Build location= /playpen/simonmar/nightly/HEAD Build config file = /home/simonmar/nightly/site/msrc/conf-HEAD-cam-02-unx Nightly build started on cam-02-unx at Mon Apr 14 18:00:01 BST 2008. checking out

Re: how to make new modules exposed?

2008-04-14 Thread pepe
Hi Dana, You probably solved this already. It looks to me like you did it all right, maybe just failed to do "make boot" after your changes. Cheers pepe On 10/04/2008, at 17:06, Dana N. Xu wrote: I create a new directory, named /verify, under the directory / compiler. May I know how to exp

Re: Dodgy newtype axioms

2008-04-14 Thread Tim Chevalier
On 4/14/08, Tim Chevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I'm not so sure that it's sound in general. What if you had a coercion > like: > :CoT (t:::*) (forall a . a -> t :=: a -> T) > where T :: *? > Then if you wrote (:CoT (u::?)), that would mean > forall a . a -> ? :=: a -> T > Oops, ty

Re: Dodgy newtype axioms

2008-04-14 Thread Tim Chevalier
On 4/14/08, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry Tim, it was the weekend. Here's your example, I think: > > :TFunctor :: (*->*) -> * > (->) :: ? -> ? -> * > r :: * > > Hence > (->) r :: ? -> * > > You are concerned about the kind-correctness of > > :

patch applied (ghc): Revive the static argument transformation

2008-04-14 Thread Simon Peyton Jones
Fri Apr 11 09:21:37 PDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Revive the static argument transformation This patch revives the Static Argument Transformation, thanks to Max Bolingbroke. It is enabled with -fstatic-argument-transformation or-O2 Headline nofib results

patch applied (ghc): Transfer strictness and arity info when abstracting over type variables

2008-04-14 Thread Simon Peyton Jones
Fri Apr 11 07:24:18 PDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Transfer strictness and arity info when abstracting over type variables See Note [transferPolyIdInfo] in Id.lhs, and test eyeball/demand-on-polymorphic-floatouts.hs Max Bolingbroke discovered that we were gratuitiously losing st

RE: Dodgy newtype axioms

2008-04-14 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
Sorry Tim, it was the weekend. Here's your example, I think: :TFunctor :: (*->*) -> * (->) :: ? -> ? -> * r :: * Hence (->) r :: ? -> * You are concerned about the kind-correctness of :TFunctor ((->) r) Well, that's correct if (? -> *) is a sub-kind of (* ->

Daily report for head

2008-04-14 Thread BuildBot Collator
Build results: ___ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc

Daily report for stable

2008-04-14 Thread BuildBot Collator
Build results: ___ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc