Don't loop on hidden recursive data type #1925
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
alex-mckenna
approved these changes
Sep 13, 2021
tests/shouldwork/Issues/T1921.hs
Outdated
| -- Straightforward newtype | ||
| type LFSRState :: Nat -> Type | ||
| newtype LFSRState n = LFSRState { runLFSRState :: BitVector n } | ||
| deriving (NFDataX, AutoReg) via (BitVector n) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should remove DerivingVia and backport this to 1.4 in case there's another 1.4.x release
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I removed it as part of getting it through CI
christiaanb
force-pushed
the
fix1921
branch
from
3615dd0 to
029971e
Compare
The recursive occurrence was hiding behind a type family. So we should always expand type families when checking whether a data type is recursive. Fixes #1921
christiaanb
force-pushed
the
fix1921
branch
from
029971e to
0d7abf5
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The recursive occurrence was hiding behind a type family. So we should always expand type families when checking whether a
data type is recursive.
Fixes #1921