[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#33478] [PATCH] gnu: agda: Upgrade to 2.5.4.2
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
[bug#33478] [PATCH] gnu: agda: Upgrade to 2.5.4.2 |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:27:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Brett,
Brett Gilio <address@hidden> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Hello Brett,
>>
>> Brett Gilio <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>>>> [ 37 of 339] Compiling Agda.Utils.Memo ( src/full/Agda/Utils/Memo.hs,
>>>> dist/build/Agda/Utils/Memo.o )
>>>>
>>>> src/full/Agda/Utils/Memo.hs:10:1: error:
>>>> Bad interface file:
>>>> /gnu/store/fmq6ybv1m3yr9x2y16gv85nv30df9xw8-ghc-hashable-1.2.7.0/lib/ghc-8.4.3/hashable-1.2.7.0/Data/Hashable.hi
>>>> Something is amiss; requested module
>>>> hashable-1.2.7.0:Data.Hashable differs from name found in the interface
>>>> file hashable-1.2.7.0:Data.Hashable (if these names look the same, try
>>>> again with -dppr-debug)
>>>> |
>>>> 10 | import Data.Hashable
>>>> | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>>>
>>>> Could you take a look?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ludo’.
>>>
>>> Hi Ludo,
>>>
>>> I put it through 20 rounds of building, and dumped the gc and
>>> everything. I can not replicate it on my end, can we get a third person
>>> to try it?
>>
>> I’m not sure what you mean by “20 rounds” and “dumped the gc”. I would
>> expect such a failure to be deterministic.
>>
>> Are you testing this on ‘master’? Which commit? I tested it on top of
>> 63fd9f084a5e345d2edaeaf5e8f435a3130f9edc.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ludo’.
>
> --rounds=20 to see if it is deterministic. But as I said, I am not
> replicating the error. Yes, I tested it on master, commit and on the
> same commit number as you.
I’ve retried just now: applying the Agda patch alone on top of commit
0c17f72070cbfb04f311b776a080849b369aac25. It’s the same derivation as
the one I tested above.
Are we in the exact same conditions? I’m on x86_64.
Ludo’.