Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Doesn't build with GHC 7.10 #17

Open
robdockins opened this issue Jun 5, 2015 · 6 comments
Open

Doesn't build with GHC 7.10 #17

robdockins opened this issue Jun 5, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@robdockins
Copy link

Sadly, relaxing package upper bounds doesn't just work:

$ ghc --version
The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 7.10.1

$ cabal install bitset==1.4.8 --allow-newer
Configuring bitset-1.4.8...
Building bitset-1.4.8...
Preprocessing library bitset-1.4.8...

src/GHC/Integer/GMP/TypeExt.hs:16:8:
    Could not find module ‘GHC.Integer.GMP.Prim’
    Use -v to see a list of the files searched for.
Failed to install bitset-1.4.8
@miguel-negrao
Copy link

Is it to be expected that at some point this package will be upgraded to use version 1.0.0.0 of integer-gmp ? It would be useful to know what are the intentions.

@superbobry
Copy link
Member

I haven't looked into the sources of the new integer-gmp yet, but since it's complete re-write my guess is that a backward-compatible migration might take some time.

@NCrashed
Copy link

I have ported the library to 7.10.2, but dropped backward compatibility (I need to checkout henet package if it fits my needs). Perhaps, someone could reuse the work: https://github.com/Teaspot-Studio/bitset

@superbobry
Copy link
Member

Cool! I think backward compatibility is just a question of free time and some ifdef hackery. Feel free to submit a PR.

@treeowl
Copy link
Contributor

treeowl commented Jun 9, 2016

@superbobry, my big question is why bitset reimplements instance Bits Integer at all. If there's an efficiency problem with what base does there, shouldn't that be pushed upstream? And if there isn't (any longer) such a problem, shouldn't we strip out all the extra code? This whole thing seems strange. One issue I know about is that some Bits instances in base fail to INLINE some things they should. It would be much nicer to work around this problem using GHC.Exts.inline, which for non-GHC implementations can be defined as id, instead of digging around in Integer internals.

@treeowl
Copy link
Contributor

treeowl commented Jun 9, 2016

Ahh..... I see. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7860 is still open after all these years.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants