Version control systems

[C Rodrigues]

I've "fixed" this problem by increasing the number of registers used on ia64 to 34.  The problem will show up again if anyone finds a way to make GCC use even more registers.

-heatsink

>>
>> Sorry, I couldn't find the rest of the preceding message. Someone  
>> wrote that they had to turn down cc flags to get SHA1.hs to compile on  
>> IA64.
>
> Yep.
>
>> What C compiler was being used, and what were the symptoms?
>
> GCC.
>
> As I recall the symptoms were that gcc used more than 32 registers and
> then the mangler balked. The reason is that a registerised ia64 build
> expects to only use the first 32 registers but does not take any
> precautions to make sure that this is the case. It just relies on the
> fact that most code coming out of the ghc backend cannot make use of
> more than a handful of registers. If gcc does actually use more then the
> mangler catches this. We tried some flags to make gcc restrict itself to
> a subset of the registers but could not get it to obey.
>
> Duncan

_________________________________________________________________
Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger.  Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_082008_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

Ian Lynagh:

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:21:47PM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty  
> wrote:
>> From what you are saying, it seems that one "advantage" of git (in-
>> place branch switching) is not going to be useful to GHC in any case
>
> Yes.
>
>> (because we use nested repositories).
>
> That does make it harder, but the main problem is that switching  
> between
> branches changes the timestamp of files that differ, meaning the build
> system thinks that recompilation needs to be done.
>
> Also, if you have 2 in-place branches of GHC then only one of them can
> be built at any one time, as they share a working directory.

That doesn't sound like GHC-specific issues.  So, if inplace branches  
are useful for other projects -such as the Linux kernel- why shouldn't  
it be useful for us?

Manuel
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

[Ian Lynagh]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:31:16PM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:

> Ian Lynagh:
> >On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:21:47PM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty  
> >wrote:
> >>From what you are saying, it seems that one "advantage" of git (in-
> >>place branch switching) is not going to be useful to GHC in any case
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >>(because we use nested repositories).
> >
> >That does make it harder, but the main problem is that switching  
> >between
> >branches changes the timestamp of files that differ, meaning the build
> >system thinks that recompilation needs to be done.
> >
> >Also, if you have 2 in-place branches of GHC then only one of them can
> >be built at any one time, as they share a working directory.
>
> That doesn't sound like GHC-specific issues.  So, if inplace branches  
> are useful for other projects -such as the Linux kernel- why shouldn't  
> it be useful for us?

I don't know.

Git people, can you fill us in please?



Thanks
Ian

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users