| 11 Nov 2025 |
 raitobezarius | Yeah, this is a tradeoff decision | 19:28:32 |
 Rutile (Commentator2.0) feel free to ping | Li: am kinda curious: when will lix officially break bug compatibility and finally fix them? | 19:29:24 |
 delroth | FYI: git.lix.systems might have some short unavailability in the next hour or so while I push a security update | 19:32:41 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @commentator2.0:elia.garden
Li: am kinda curious: when will lix officially break bug compatibility and finally fix them? I don't know | 19:45:42 |
| raitobezarius | All of this is very langver shaped and we don't have langver | 19:45:54 |
| delroth | (done) | 19:46:49 |
| 12 Nov 2025 |
| raitobezarius | pennae made progress on pointer equality and expanded all known cases we have in mind: https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/4556/3/tests/functional2/lang/eq/in-pointer-equality.nix | 12:40:46 |
| raitobezarius | We are planning to proceed with cl/4556 which is considered to be a breaking change. | 12:40:59 |
| raitobezarius | The NaN behavior unsoundness is unfortunate but we will have to document it and accept it. | 12:41:14 |
| raitobezarius | piegames if you have some time to spare, it'd be helpful for us if you can sign-off on https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/4556 as well | 12:44:39 |
| raitobezarius | https://wiki.lix.systems/books/lix-contributors/page/pointer-equality contains exposition info | 12:44:47 |
 piegames | I'll try to have a look tomorrow | 13:14:27 |
 K900 | I picked a nit | 13:15:27 |
 niko ⚡️ | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
The NaN behavior unsoundness is unfortunate but we will have to document it and accept it. Cursed not really serious idea - do pointer comparison as doubles, and make any object pointer which contains a nan, nan itself, and everything else not nan | 13:33:45 |
| raitobezarius | forgets this idea | 17:21:28 |
 aloisw | Is it worse than before? My understanding is that the only change for NaN is that after attrset update it will now sometimes return false (similar to the load-bearing change that was observed for functions, but hopefully less load-bearing there). | 17:28:55 |
| raitobezarius | it's ~not but from an absolute PoV, it makes me so sad :D | 17:29:22 |
| raitobezarius | (_:O:[_]==[_]&&[_]!=O(_)[_])(_:_)map will be added to the iceberg | 17:29:44 |
| aloisw | Will the attrset update thing too, given that even the Snix folks missed it? | 17:32:23 |
| raitobezarius | it shall be | 17:32:35 |
| raitobezarius | :D | 17:32:37 |
| raitobezarius | in other news | 17:32:47 |
| raitobezarius | the Value changes creates this noticeable evaluation changes | 17:33:02 |
| raitobezarius | android32.rustc.x86_64-linux changes error message significantly (was unfree, now is unsupported)
x86_64-freebsd.cargo.aarch64-darwin goes from unsupported to broken
x86_64-netbsd.buildPackages.binutils.aarch64-darwin evals (was infrec)
x86_64-netbsd.cargo.aarch64-darwin is broken (was infrec)
x86_64-netbsd.gmp.aarch64-darwin evals (was infrec)
x86_64-netbsd.libc.aarch64-darwin same
x86_64-netbsd.mesa.aarch64-darwin unsupported (was infrec)
x86_64-netbsd.nix.aarch64-darwin evals (was infrec)
x86_64-netbsd.nixVersions.git.aarch64-darwin same
x86_64-netbsd.rustc.aarch64-darwin same
| 17:33:06 |
| raitobezarius | we deem this an improvement | 17:33:15 |
| raitobezarius | but we also discovered outPath changes | 17:33:26 |
| raitobezarius | (which is the "uh-huh" moment) | 17:33:40 |
| raitobezarius | * the Value changes creates these noticeable evaluation changes | 17:33:54 |
| raitobezarius | my personal explanation is that the sharing broke cycles in the evaluation expression graph, so we can do more | 17:34:08 |
| raitobezarius | the test is 2.93 → post-CL change | 17:34:16 |
