GHC 8.10 backports?

[Moritz Angermann]

More like abandoned backport attempt :D

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 7:29 PM Andreas Klebinger <klebinger.andreas at gmx.at>
wrote:

> Yes, only changing the rule did indeed cause regressions.
> Whichwhen not including the string changes. I don't think it's worth
> having one without the other.
>
> But it seems you already backported this?
> See https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/5263
>
> Cheers
> Andreas
> Am 22/03/2021 um 07:02 schrieb Moritz Angermann:
>
> The commit message from
> https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/commit/f10d11fa49fa9a7a506c4fdbdf86521c2a8d3495,
>
> makes the changes to string seem required. Applying the commit on its own
> doesn't apply cleanly and pulls in quite a
> bit of extra dependent commits. Just applying the elem rules appears
> rather risky. Thus will I agree that having that
> would be a nice fix to have, the amount of necessary code changes makes me
> rather uncomfortable for a minor release :-/
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:58 PM Gergő Érdi <gergo at erdi.hu> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, that makes it less appealing. In the original thread, I got no
>> further replies after my email announcing my "discovery" of that commit, so
>> I thought that was the whole story.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 13:53 Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane at dukhovni.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:39:28PM +0800, Gergő Érdi wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'd love to have this in a GHC 8.10 release:
>>> > https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2021-March/019629.html
>>>
>>> This is already in 9.0, 9.2 and master, but it is a rather non-trivial
>>> change, given all the new work that went into the String case.  So I am
>>> not sure it is small/simple enough to make for a compelling backport.
>>>
>>> There's a lot of recent activity in this space.  See also
>>> <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/5259>, which is not
>>> yet merged into master, and might still be eta-reduced one more step).
>>>
>>> I don't know whether such optimisation tweaks (not a bugfix) are in
>>> scope for backporting, we certainly need to be confident they'll not
>>> cause any new problems.  FWIW, 5259 is dramatically simpler...
>>>
>>> Of course we also have
>>> <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/4890> in much the
>>> same territory, but there we're still blocked on someone figuring out
>>> what's going on with the 20% compile-time hit with T13056, and whether
>>> that's acceptable or not...
>>>
>>> --
>>>     Viktor.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ghc-devs mailing list
>>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing listghc-devs at haskell.orghttp://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20210324/e8a22b88/attachment.html>