vectorisation code?
Alan & Kim Zimmerman
alan.zimm at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 09:50:29 UTC 2015
I think there is significant infrastructure in the parser, not sure how
that could be managed via a plugin.
Alan
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Jan Stolarek <jan.stolarek at p.lodz.pl>
wrote:
> Would it be possible to turn vectorisation into a compiler plugin? This
> would kill two birds with
> one stone: vectorisation would be removed from GHC sources and at the same
> time the code could be
> maintained by Geoffrey or anyone else who would want to take it up. I'm
> not sure what would
> happen with DPH in that scenario.
>
> Janek
>
> Dnia czwartek, 22 stycznia 2015, Manuel M T Chakravarty napisał:
> > Thanks for the offer, Geoff.
> >
> > Under these circumstances, I would also very much prefer for Geoff
> getting
> > the code in order and leaving it in GHC.
> >
> > Manuel
> >
> > > Geoffrey Mainland <mainland at apeiron.net>:
> > >
> > > I'm sorry I'm a bit late to the game here, but there is also the option
> > > of reconnecting DPH to the build.
> > >
> > > When I patched DPH for the new version of the vector library, I did not
> > > perform this step---now I'm sorry I didn't.
> > >
> > > I am willing to get DPH in working order again---I believe the required
> > > work will be minimal. However, that only makes sense if we 1) re-enable
> > > DPH in the nightly builds (and also by default for validate?), and 2)
> > > folks will not object too strenuously to having DPH stick around.
> > >
> > > My fear is that without making it part of the nightly builds,
> > > accumulated bitrot will make it extremely difficult to ever
> re-integrate
> > > DPH. I would hate to see that happen.
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > > On 01/21/2015 04:11 PM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> > >> I’ve had a chat to Manuel. He is content for us to remove DPH code
> > >> altogether (not just CPP/comment it out), provided we are careful to
> > >> signpost what has gone and how to get it back.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I am no Git expert, so can I leave it to you guys to work out what to
> > >> do? The specification is:
> > >>
> > >> · It should be clear how to revert the change; that is, to
> > >> re-introduce the deleted code. I guess that might be “git revert
> > >> <some horrible hash>”
> > >>
> > >> · If someone trips over more DPH code later, and wants to
> > >> remove that too, it should be clear how to add it to the list of
> > >> things to be revertred.
> > >>
> > >> · We should have a Trac ticket “Resume work on DPH and
> > >> vectorisation” or something like that, which summarises the reversion
> > >> process.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Just to be clear, this does not indicate any lack of interest in DPH
> > >> on my part. (Quite the reverse.) It’s just that while no one is
> > >> actually working on it, we should use our source code control system
> > >> to move it out of the way, as others on this thread have persuasively
> > >> argued.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Manuel, yell if I got anything wrong.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Simon
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *From:*ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org] *On Behalf Of
> > >> *Carter Schonwald
> > >> *Sent:* 21 January 2015 03:32
> > >> *To:* RodLogic
> > >> *Cc:* Manuel M T Chakravarty; ghc-devs at haskell.org
> > >> *Subject:* Re: vectorisation code?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> moving it to its own submodule is just a complicated version of
> > >> cutting a branch that has the code Right before deleting it from
> master.
> > >>
> > >> afaik, the amount of love needed is roughly "one or more full time
> > >> grad students really owning it", though i could be wrong.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:39 AM, RodLogic <dev at rodlogic.net
> > >> <mailto:dev at rodlogic.net>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> (disclaimer: I know nothing about the vectorization code)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Now, is the vectorization code really dead code or it is code that
> > >> needs love to come back to life? By removing it from the code
> > >> base, you are probably sealing it's fate as dead code as we are
> > >> limiting new or existing contributors to act on it (even if it's a
> > >> commit hash away). If it is code that needs love to come back to
> > >> life, grep noise or conditional compilation is a small price to
> > >> pay here, imho.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As a compromise, is it possible to move vectorization code into
> > >> it's own submodule in git or is it too intertwined with core GHC?
> > >> So that it can be worked on independent of GHC?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel
> > >> <hvriedel at gmail.com <mailto:hvriedel at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 2015-01-20 at 09:37:25 +0100, Jan Stolarek wrote:
> > >>>> Here's an alternate suggestion: in SimplCore, keep the call
> > >>
> > >> to vectorise
> > >>
> > >>>> around, but commented out
> > >>>
> > >>> Yuck. Carter and Brandon are right here - we have git, let
> > >>
> > >> it do the
> > >>
> > >>> job. I propose that we remove vectorization code, create a
> > >>
> > >> Trac ticket
> > >>
> > >>> about vectorization & DPH needing love and record the commit
> > >>
> > >> hash in
> > >>
> > >>> the ticket so that we can revert it easily in the future.
> > >>
> > >> I'm also against commenting out dead code in the presence of a
> > >> VCS.
> > >>
> > >> Btw, here's two links discussing the issues related to
> > >> commenting out if
> > >> anyone's interested in knowing more:
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >>
> > >>
> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/190096/can-commented-out-
> > >>code-be-valuable-documentation
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >>
> > >>
> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/45378/is-commented-out-co
> > >>de-really-always-bad
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> hvr
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ghc-devs mailing list
> > > ghc-devs at haskell.org
> > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-devs mailing list
> > ghc-devs at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20150122/56f7b3c0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the ghc-devs
mailing list