pgj, build 7, Success

2010-04-14 Thread Builder
pgj, build 7 Build succeeded Details: http://darcs.haskell.org/ghcBuilder/builders/pgj/7.html darcs checkout | Success create mk/build.mk | Success get subrepos | Success repo versions| Success setting version date | Success booting | Success configuring

[nightly] 14-Apr-2010 build of STABLE on i386-unknown-linux (cam-02-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com)

2010-04-14 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 Wed Apr 14 18:10:02 BST 2010. checki

[nightly] 14-Apr-2010 build of STABLE on x86_64-unknown-linux (cam-04-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com)

2010-04-14 Thread GHC Build Reports
Build description = STABLE on x86_64-unknown-linux (cam-04-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com) Build location= /64playpen/simonmar/nightly/STABLE-cam-04-unx Build config file = /home/simonmar/nightly/site/msrc/conf-STABLE-cam-04-unx Nightly build started on cam-04-unx at Wed Apr 14 19:10:01 BST 20

Does any one have notes on hermetic GHC/Haskell Platform installs?

2010-04-14 Thread Crutcher Dunnavant
Hi all. Some of you may recognize me from asking a bunch of questions which I didn't follow up on last fall. Sorry about that, but I'll try and make up for my sins. I am attempting to clean up Haskell integration for our build system. I'll be spending all of next week on this, but wanted to see if

Re: [patch] Do not call bash but sh in the "boot" script

2010-04-14 Thread Gabor PALI
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote: > Hmm, we already need perl for darcs-all. Perhaps the best solution would > be to rewrite boot* in perl. That would also mean that we could use > perl's regexps, without having to worry about differences in sed's > behaviour on different platfor

Re: [patch] Do not call bash but sh in the "boot" script

2010-04-14 Thread Matthias Kilian
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:10:00PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > Perhaps just use make like Matthias suggested? > > That feels very klunky to me; a shell script /and/ a Makefile for this > simple task. Not a *Makefile*, just some make -f - <<'EOM' ... EOM goo. I actually had something that *almost

Re: [patch] Do not call bash but sh in the "boot" script

2010-04-14 Thread Ian Lynagh
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 01:28:13AM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > > On 15/04/2010, at 01:14, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:28:02PM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > >> > >> FWIW, Solaris sh supports test ... -ot ... but not [ ... -ot ... ]. > > > > On sparky.ce.chalme

[nightly] 14-Apr-2010 build of HEAD on x86_64-unknown-linux (cam-04-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com)

2010-04-14 Thread GHC Build Reports
Build description = HEAD on x86_64-unknown-linux (cam-04-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com) Build location= /64playpen/simonmar/nightly/HEAD-cam-04-unx Build config file = /home/simonmar/nightly/site/msrc/conf-HEAD-cam-04-unx Nightly build started on cam-04-unx at Wed Apr 14 19:00:02 BST 2010. **

[nightly] 14-Apr-2010 build of HEAD on i386-unknown-linux (cam-02-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com)

2010-04-14 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 Wed Apr 14 18:00:02 BST 2010. checking out

Re: [patch] Do not call bash but sh in the "boot" script

2010-04-14 Thread Roman Leshchinskiy
On 15/04/2010, at 01:14, Ian Lynagh wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:28:02PM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: >> >> FWIW, Solaris sh supports test ... -ot ... but not [ ... -ot ... ]. > > On sparky.ce.chalmers.se neither test nor [] supports -ot in sh. In bash > both work, and /bin/test (wh

Re: [patch] Do not call bash but sh in the "boot" script

2010-04-14 Thread Ian Lynagh
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:28:02PM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > On 12/04/2010, at 16:30, Matthias Kilian wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:47:26AM +1000, Ben Lippmeier wrote: > >> The trouble is that the boot scripts use GNU specific features. > >> I was the one that changed it to bash

Re: [nightly] 13-Apr-2010 build of HEAD on x86_64-unknown-linux (cam-04-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com)

2010-04-14 Thread Ian Lynagh
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:44:55PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > Ian, Simon > > What's up here? > > | compiler/vectorise/VectUtils.hs compiler/vectorise/Vectorise.hs > | > | compiler/basicTypes/BasicTypes.lhs:73:7: > | Could not find module `Data.Data': > | Use -v to see a list of

Re: Does let always allocate in core?

2010-04-14 Thread Max Bolingbroke
On 14 April 2010 14:23, Johan Tibell wrote: > Hi! > > I ran into a piece of core today that I don't understand: > > (let { >   y_Xwv [Dmd=Just L] :: Int# Let of an unlifted type is a special case: it's more like a case in that it evaluates the thing on the right hand side immediately rather than

Re: Does let always allocate in core?

2010-04-14 Thread Roman Leshchinskiy
On 14/04/2010, at 23:23, Johan Tibell wrote: > Hi! > > I ran into a piece of core today that I don't understand: > > (let { > y_Xwv [Dmd=Just L] :: Int# > > y_Xwv = -# (+# a_s2gvj 1) a_s2gvj } in > Data.Text.Builder.Buffer > @ s1_a2gph > ww6_s2gx7 > ww7_s2gx8 > ww8_s2gx9 > (+# ww9

RE: [nightly] 13-Apr-2010 build of HEAD on x86_64-unknown-linux (cam-04-unx.europe.corp.microsoft.com)

2010-04-14 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
Ian, Simon What's up here? | compiler/vectorise/VectUtils.hs compiler/vectorise/Vectorise.hs | | compiler/basicTypes/BasicTypes.lhs:73:7: | Could not find module `Data.Data': | Use -v to see a list of the files searched for. Seems to have been happening for several days Simon | ---

Does let always allocate in core?

2010-04-14 Thread Johan Tibell
Hi! I ran into a piece of core today that I don't understand: (let { y_Xwv [Dmd=Just L] :: Int# y_Xwv = -# (+# a_s2gvj 1) a_s2gvj } in Data.Text.Builder.Buffer @ s1_a2gph ww6_s2gx7 ww7_s2gx8 ww8_s2gx9 (+# ww9_s2gxa y_Xwv) (-# ww10_s2gxb y_Xwv)) I was reading the documen

Re: [patch] Do not call bash but sh in the "boot" script

2010-04-14 Thread Gabor PALI
Hello, On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > While that is true, we should certainly expect that patches which obviously > affect cross-platform compatibility are validated on all supported platforms. Is there any progress on this (I mean has anybody tried the patch on

Re: [patch] Do not call bash but sh in the "boot" script

2010-04-14 Thread Roman Leshchinskiy
On 12/04/2010, at 16:30, Matthias Kilian wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:47:26AM +1000, Ben Lippmeier wrote: >> The trouble is that the boot scripts use GNU specific features. >> I was the one that changed it to bash because I was tired of the >> build breaking on Solaris. I think the original