Proposal: provide cas and barriers symbols even without -threaded

[Ryan Newton]

Well for new features like this (rather than bug fix), I'd prefer if I
could get commit access and at least push it to a branch.  I can create a
new trac ticket too.


On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Carter Schonwald wrote:

> took a quick look,  awesome! this will make it MUCH MUCH easier for me to
> do my work. Thank you very much.
>
> off hand, to prevent patch confusion,
>  it naively seems like the nicest way to post the patches to trac is to
> post a *new ticket to trac* that links to the main one,
>  plus add a comment on the main ticket a link to the new ticket for the
> c/cmm based versions of the primops.
>
>  At least, given that theres likely going to be a bit of discussion on
> just your ticket perhaps, better to factor that into a related ticket to
> make it easier to keep track of that?
>
> (i'm also possibly over thinking this enormously, so i could be way off
> base)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> nvm, githubs backup, i'll have a look! :)
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> awesome! (this will also make my work easier)
>
> ryan: github is down, could you put the branch on bitbucket or some such
> so I can have a lookseee/clone locally?
>
> thanks!
> -Carter
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to keep you all up to date...  I'm adding the primops in question and
> validating the individual commits before putting them here:
>
>     https://github.com/rrnewton/ghc/commits/atomicPrimOps
>
> The basic idea for using these extensions is:
>
>    - the atomic-primops library will work in 7.6 or 7.7+.  It will use
>    ifdefs to decide whether to use its own primops or GHC-builtin
>    - future versions will simply get faster, as Carter replaces
>    out-of-line primops that *also* use C calls, with inline primops / LLVM
>    equivalents
>
> Shall I stick a patch on a ticket, or will someone volunteer to pull?
>  What's the protocol for requesting commit access anyway?  (By the way, can
> someone share the reason that pull-requests to the github ghc mirror are
> such a no-no?  They seem no worse than a patch in an email which the big warning
> sign <https://github.com/ghc/ghc> recommends.)
>
> Best,
>   -Ryan
>
> P.S. FYI, I'm periodically getting these:
>
>     0 caused framework failures
>     0 unexpected passes
>     1 unexpected failures
>
>      Unexpected failures:
>  perf/compiler  T1969 [stat not good enough] (normal)
>
> Can that just be because of running on a loaded machine?  How narrow are
> these windows?
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ok, could you add those comments (about additional operations to consider)
> to the ticket?
>
>
> Sure.  Just did that.
>
>
> relatedly: if we want these atomic ops to use the sequential analogues
> when we're not using the threaded run time system, does that mean
> we need to have a symbol / constant variable exposed in the RTS we link
> in, so that the inline code branches on a linktime constant value / symbol
> (something like "isThreadedRTS:: Bool", )  or some sort of analogue
> thereof?
>
>
> <
>
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20130810/19571df4/attachment.htm>