TH Lift

[phadej]

WIP, have to add SBS instance still.

Builds on top of #390, because there is better "primtiive" to pack Addr#, we can do better then is currently done in
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/th-lift-instances-0.1.18/docs/src/Instances.TH.Lift.html#line-281

[phadej]

I think there is some problem with bytestring, which I fail to pinpoint. See how CI fails

    binary: FAIL
      tests/bytestring-th.hs:50:
      expected: "\NUL\129\STX\ETX\NUL\SOH\STX\ETX"
       but got: "\NUL\SOH\STX\ETX\NUL\SOH\STX\ETX"

yet the code

    , testCase "binary" $ do
        let bs :: LBS.ByteString
            bs = "\0\1\2\3\0\1\2\3"

        -- print $ LBS.unpack bs
        -- print $ LBS.unpack $(TH.lift $ LBS.pack [0,1,2,3,0,1,2,3])

        bs @=? $(TH.lift $ LBS.pack [0,1,2,3,0,1,2,3])

is very trivial. I'm not sure whom to blame, bytestring or GHC. If I run test-suite with -O0 i.e. without optimizations, it passes.

[phadej]

I see

Rule fired:
    ByteString packChars/packAddress (Data.ByteString.Internal)

firign, but it IMHO should NOT fire on (Modified-UTF8) encoded "\0\1\2\3\0\1\2\3". @bgamari Can you check this.

The test suite passes on GHC-8.10.4 and older, so I think its GHC issue.

EDIT: sorry, it was for "foobar", so it's not the culprit.

[phadej]

I opened #393 for literal issue, I can reproduce it with master version (and the one bundled with GHC-9.2), so it's not due this patch.

[phadej]

I don't know what's wrong with windows job, but it seem to cancel everything else?

[phadej]

CI green.

[sjakobi]

have to add SBS instance still.

Do you want to do this in this PR?

[phadej]

@sjakobi thanks for the reminder. ShortByteString instance added.

[Bodigrim]

Could we possibly have less duplication? It seems that only the last line is conditional on template-haskell version. Same for SBS.

[phadej]

it's not the same,

lift (BS ptr len) = ...

vs

lift bs@(BS _ len) = ...

Disable unused variable warning and I will simpify.

[Bodigrim]

Please put this into one of existing test suites. Linking an additional executable is expensive on Windows.

[phadej]

In which of three it belongs? lazy-hclose and test-builder seems to be testing specific features, and prop-compiled is for properties. It looks like fourth test-suite for an isolated feature is following the example.

[Bodigrim]

Looks good, I'll merge all test suites into one executable later.

[phadej]

When the next release will be made? Will bytestring-0.11.2.0 be bundled with GHC-9.2? EDIT: or even GHC-9.0.2?

[Bodigrim]

Feature freeze for GHC 9.2 was half a year ago and RC is out, so I expect it to stick with bytestring-0.11.1.0, even if we make a new release right now. GHC 9.0 remains on bytestring-0.10 series.

My plan is to release bytestring-0.11.2.0 either by feature freeze for GHC 9.4, or once #365 and #423 are merged, whatever earlier.

[phadej]

bytestring-0.11.2.0 is a minor release, no breaking changes. Why can't it be included? It definitely can in GHC-9.0.2, and I definitely would like to have this patch in GHC-9.2 (.1 or .2) too.

[phadej]

In particular: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/commentary/libraries/version-history

bytestring was updated in GHG-8.10 series, also containers, haskeline and process.

[Bodigrim]

It's not like I'm against making new developments of bytestring available to users without a year or two of delay, right? I'm relaying my understanding of situation according to previous discussions with GHC team, I'd be happy to learn that we can make new bytestrings available earlier.

[phadej]

ping @bgamari @emilypi

[phadej]

Can bytestring-0.11.2.0 be released now as GHC-9.2.1 is released. (And possibly included with GHC-9.2.2?)