an Leshchinskiy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: 17 September 2008 04:51
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: Mitchell, Neil; cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: too many specialisations for one function
|
| On 16/09/2008, at 19:34, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
|
| > Interesting idea Neil. Roman: I t
On 16/09/2008, at 19:34, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Interesting idea Neil. Roman: I think you only need deep
specialisation on non-recursive constructors, don't you?
Yes, as long as the definition of recursive doesn't include things like
data T a where
Pair :: T a -> T b -> T (a,b)
Roman Leshchinskiy
| Subject: RE: too many specialisations for one function
|
| > OK I have this figured out. Consider this (from
| > haddock/src/Haddock/Backends/Hoogle.hs):
| >
| > dropComment (' ':'-':'-':' ':_) = []
| > dropComment (x:xs) = x :
| Sent: 12 September 2008 09:00
> | To: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
> | Subject: too many specialisations for one function
> |
> | Hi
> |
> | Using GHC Head from yesterday, I am encountering loads of warnings
> | about too many specialisations for one function. Some of
> these warning
building ghc head:
$ grep 'specialisations\|Function:' mystuff/make.log
SpecConstr: too many specialisations for one function (see -fspec-constr-count):
Function: integer:GHC.Integer.gcdInteger{v r1i} [lid]
SpecConstr: too many specialisations for one function (see -fspec-con
The same happens when I build GHC head's haddock.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Mitchell, Neil
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Using GHC Head from yesterday, I am encountering loads of warnings about
> too many specialisations for one function. Some of these warnin
mber 2008 09:00
| To: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: too many specialisations for one function
|
| Hi
|
| Using GHC Head from yesterday, I am encountering loads of warnings about
| too many specialisations for one function. Some of these warning
| messages take up at least 10 screens. To give just on
2008/9/12 Mitchell, Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> These messages obscure any real warnings and are quite verbose. Are they
> debug markings that accidentally got committed? In general, given things
> like this, is it work reporting them - or just ignoring them until a
> release candidate?
These warn
Hi
Using GHC Head from yesterday, I am encountering loads of warnings about
too many specialisations for one function. Some of these warning
messages take up at least 10 screens. To give just one example, when
compiling haddock, the Hoogle backend gives:
C:\ghc\ghc-6.9.20080905\bin\ar.exe
