Proposal: provide cas and barriers symbols even without -threaded

[Carter Schonwald]

huh, did I suggest viewing it as a bug fix? my mistake! (a branch would
make sense)


On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20130810/92412452/attachment.htm>