On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:25:35AM -0400, John Dias wrote:
> Just ran validate. Is the following a currently acceptable result
Yes, these tests randomly sometimes fail.
Simon M, I think you looked into this a while ago - do you know what's
going on with these tests?
> Unexpected failures:
>b
Just ran validate. Is the following a currently acceptable result, or do I
have something to fix over here before I push?
OVERALL SUMMARY for test run started at Tue Oct 21 08:01:49 EDT 2008
2232 total tests, which gave rise to
8384 test cases, of which
0 caused framework failures
| On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 03:43:56PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| >
| > Any objections?
|
| None from me!
Good -- you're probably the key player here.
|
| > The changes are mostly in cmm/ and codeGen/.
|
| Currently we aren't making unnecessary changes in those directories,
| e.g. fixing w
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 03:43:56PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
> Any objections?
None from me!
> The changes are mostly in cmm/ and codeGen/.
Currently we aren't making unnecessary changes in those directories,
e.g. fixing warnings or monadifying code, due to the work happening in
the br
John Dias and I propose to commit a very large batch of changes to the code
generator and Cmm, to the HEAD, shortly. The baseline setup will be to
continue to use the old codegen path, but the new path will be available too.
In due course we'll flip the bit, so that the default is to use the n