Opened 12 months ago

Last modified 12 months ago

#16235 new bug

Hadrian devel2 builds Haddock

Reported by: goldfire Owned by:
Priority: normal Milestone:
Component: Build System (Hadrian) Version: 8.6.3
Keywords: newcomer Cc:
Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: Unknown/Multiple
Type of failure: None/Unknown Test Case:
Blocked By: Blocking:
Related Tickets: Differential Rev(s):
Wiki Page:


... but make did not, with devel2.

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 12 months ago by mpickering

Keywords: newcomer added

comment:2 Changed 12 months ago by mpickering

What is the argument to not build it? If your change breaks haddock then you should know about it and fix it so it's useful that it builds.

If don't want to build it, you can run

/hadrian/ --freeze1 stage2:exe:ghc-bin

comment:3 Changed 12 months ago by RyanGlScott

I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, if you're using the devel2 flavour, you most likely only care about debugging GHC itself, and you probably don't care about frivolities like Haddock. On the other hand, Haddock is a pretty integral part of the GHC bindist, and it could be argued that not building it in devel2 is tantamount to not testing an important code path.

(FWIW, I first noticed this quirk when using the quick flavour, which is another place where the make-based build system also did not build Haddock. I suppose I rationalized this as trying to finish the build, y'know, quickly as possible, but this reasoning might not actually hold water in light of the reasoning above.)

comment:4 Changed 12 months ago by goldfire

I agree that we should testing building and operation of haddock -- that's what validation is for. But, if I'm twiddling the setup of the HsSyn AST, I don't want to have to update Haddock as I go, until the new AST is all settled.

You're right that I can just build one part of GHC (the compiler), but I still think it's better to default away from Haddock.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.