<rjo>
whitequark: what is the plan for binding builtins like min(), max()?
<whitequark>
rjo: no, this is only necessary for exceptions which are raised from the runtime, using artiq_raise_from_c
<whitequark>
all other exceptions are handled transparently
<whitequark>
rjo: min/max have overloaded invocations (different sets/types of arguments) so they have to be explicitly handled in inferencer and codegen
<whitequark>
those (and also the entry in types and prelude) are the only two places that need to be modified
<whitequark>
if you feel adventurous you might look at adding those two by analogy with existing ones
FabM has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.92 [Firefox 43.0.4/20160105164030]]
ylamarre has joined #m-labs
rohitksingh has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
rohitksingh has joined #m-labs
evilspirit has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mindrunner_ has joined #m-labs
bb-m-labs_ has joined #m-labs
mumptai has quit [*.net *.split]
bb-m-labs has quit [*.net *.split]
mindrunner has quit [*.net *.split]
kaalia has quit [*.net *.split]
fengling_ has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
kaalia has joined #m-labs
mumptai has joined #m-labs
evilspirit has joined #m-labs
[florian1 is now known as [florian]
[florian] has quit [Changing host]
[florian] has joined #m-labs
evilspirit has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
fengling_ has joined #m-labs
fengling_ has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
fengling_ has joined #m-labs
fengling_ has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
fengling_ has joined #m-labs
rohitksingh has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
fengling_ has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<rjo>
sb0: i have never seen something called 1.0 that was tested/debugged/maintained/useful/supported. usually the things after 1.0 are interesting. but feel free to rename the branches and tags. i don't care as long as there is something at that revision.
<rjo>
sb0: i am not aware of anybody looking into #65. iirc kevin was testing that previously.
fengling_ has joined #m-labs
mumptai has quit [Quit: Verlassend]
sb0 has joined #m-labs
<sb0>
rjo, so essentially you want a tag right before the new compiler merge?
<rjo>
sb0: yes. that is where i placed one iirc.
<sb0>
whitequark, rjo: what is the decision regarding "storage of kernels"?
<sb0>
rjo, ok, i'll rename that tag and see if i can find a way that it won't break the versioning system without creating a branch ...
<sb0>
probably not
<rjo>
sb0: that was in a "waiting for input from others" phase iirc. i would propose the following: determine wether this is still needed when the staging of kernels works, then, if yes, implement the thing with "divergent self".
<sb0>
I don't like having a lot of stale branches laying around
<rjo>
the problem is now that there is a 1.0 out there, conda won't voluntarily upgrade.
<sb0>
we can also just keep the commit id in the wiki
<rjo>
i don't care so much about the branch (since there would be nothing in that branch currently).
<sb0>
i don't think the package was built, was it?
<sb0>
only the master branch gets built
<rjo>
and master is now 1.0+700something
<rjo>
at least in the dev channel.
<sb0>
wasn't the tag on the other branch?
<sb0>
well fuck.
<sb0>
that's the exact breakage I said I wanted to avoid above...
<rjo>
there is no breakage yet. there will be if you insist on not calling that thing 1.0
<sb0>
aaargh yes
<sb0>
fuck
<rjo>
but who cares if there is a highly publicized 1.0?
<sb0>
aren't tags not local to branches?
<rjo>
the tag is at the junction point. thus in both branches.
<sb0>
meh
<sb0>
well, now i either have to accept your solution, or deal with more conda support hell
<sb0>
:(
<rjo>
if you really want to save that 1.0 for something better, then we can just tell those few people to downgrade explicitly.
<rjo>
that is also not hard.
<rjo>
delete them now. nobody has downloaded them.