Sent: 19 August 2009 18:48
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:03:16PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
|> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:53:37PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
|> >
|> > Validating with this in mk/validate.mk:
|> >
|> > GhcLib
Jones
| Cc: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On 21/08/2009 10:04, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| > I've cross-linked. Probably
| http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/DebuggingGhcCrashes should be under
| "Building", but I have not moved it.
|
| Why under Building?
August 2009 16:33
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On 20/08/2009 14:43, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
|> Thanks Ian
|>
|> I have started
|> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building/DebuggingGHC
|> (referenced from the Building Gui
s
| Cc: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On 20/08/2009 14:43, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| > Thanks Ian
| >
| > I have started
| > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building/DebuggingGHC
| > (referenced from the Building Guide) to describe debugging strategies for
18:48
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:03:16PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
|> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:53:37PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
|> >
|> > Validating with this in mk/validate.mk:
|> >
|> > GhcLibOpts
: Ian Lynagh [mailto:ig...@earth.li]
| Sent: 19 August 2009 18:48
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:03:16PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
| > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:53:37PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
| > >
| > > Validating with this in
I've pushed a patch that fixes the segfault that (like I discussed
before) was being caused by passing in -rstderr for the ticky file
option.
So with that patch, and the patch that Simon just pushed, I think
ticky should be OK. As far as I can tell.
One thing I noticed: the compiler option for t
Oops sorry. I recorded but did not push. Try now.
S
| -Original Message-
| From: Tim Chevalier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: 25 April 2007 05:43
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On 4/24/07, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 4/24/07, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim
OK, I committed my small patch to ticky. Over to you!
Are you sure you checked in the patch? I don't see any changes to
CgTicky since April 4.
Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Chevalier * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Often in error, never in doubt
Con
Tim
OK, I committed my small patch to ticky. Over to you!
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Tim Chevalier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: 06 April 2007 05:04
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On 4/5/07, Tim Chevalier <[EMAIL PROTEC
From: Tim Chevalier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: 06 April 2007 05:04
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On 4/5/07, Tim Chevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Also -- I just noticed that my segfault isn't the same as your
| > segfault,
On 4/5/07, Tim Chevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also -- I just noticed that my segfault isn't the same as your
segfault, apparently, because I'm not using a 64-bit machine (or
rather, I am, but my OS thinks it's running on a 32-bit machine for
some reason I don't want to explore). I get a seg
On 4/5/07, Tim Chevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, I'm just trying to reproduce what you did here... in the typedef
for StgEntCounter in Rts.h, I changed the three instances of StgWord32
to StgWord, and correspondingly, in emitTickyCounter in CgTicky.hs, I
changed the three instances of I
On 4/5/07, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
more info...
The seg fault was because I was on a 64-bit machine. StgEntCounter (defined in
Rts.h) used some 32-bit fields. The asm code emitted by CgTicky to
statically-allocate the record put the 32-bit words end to end, followed the
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Tim Chevalier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: 04 April 2007 19:21
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: ticky
|
| On 4/4/07, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Do you think ticky is working in the
On 4/4/07, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you think ticky is working in the HEAD?
Well, apparently not! (I swear, it was working when I checked it in...)
Any chance you could patch it up?
I'll look at it sometime over the next couple days and if I can't fix
it, I'll at le
16 matches
Mail list logo
