Can the in-progress ByteString proposals make it into GHC 7.4.1?

[Herbert Valerio Riedel]

(had to resent this email as it got rejected the first time by the mailing list)

On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 19:41 +0000, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:07:31PM +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 18:12 +0000, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:15:17AM +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 12:40 +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Don, Duncan: were you wanting to get these changes into 7.4?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes. They're now in the upstream repo for bytestring along with various
> > > > other changes. So I hope that'll flow through into ghc's mirror.
> > > 
> > > I tried pulling them a few days ago, but validate didn't go through.
> > 
> > Due to other libs requiring bytestring == 0.9.*, or any other more
> > interesting reason? If you don't recall, nm.
> 
> I don't think I looked into the failure in detail.

fyi, I've been trying to reproduce your validate observation, and I got
quite a few -Werror caused errors in the process (which have been fixed
in the upstream bytestring repo)

This morning I ran a "validate" on a freshly checked out GHC source
(which uses bytestring-0.9.2) tree, and got the following result:

OVERALL SUMMARY for test run started at Thu Nov 17 12:30:14 CET 2011
    3121 total tests, which gave rise to
   10479 test cases, of which
       0 caused framework failures
    7673 were skipped

    2733 expected passes
      70 expected failures
       0 unexpected passes
       3 unexpected failures

Unexpected failures:
   concurrent/should_run  5238 [exit code non-0] (normal)
   perf/compiler          T5030 [stat not good enough] (normal)
   perf/compiler          parsing001 [stat not good enough] (normal)


Then I applied the modifications (see the two patches attached) to the
ghc source-tree and the haskeline library required to make ghc compile
with bytestring-0.10 instead of bytestring-0.9.2, made sure the
bytestring library was really updated to the 0.10 version, cleaned the
source trees, and finally re-ran "validate"

Now I'm pleased to report, that the overall summary reported the exact
same numbers with bytestring-0.10 linked into GHC instead of
bytestring-0.9.2 :-)

hth,
hvr


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ghc-bytestring-0.10.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2716 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20111117/5385bcd4/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: haskeline-bytestring-0.10.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1014 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20111117/5385bcd4/attachment-0001.bin>