On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 09:08 -0700, Don Stewart wrote: > > Geraint.Jones: > > > Are there well-known differences in the implementations of Haskell in > > > ghci and hugs? I've got some moderately intricate code (simulations > > > of pipelined processors) that behave differently - apparently because > > > ghci Haskell is stricter than hugs Haskell, and I cannot find any > > > obviously relevant claims about strictness in the documentation. > > I think they should give the same answer. It sounds like a bug in one > implementation or the other. > I suspect this might be a library thing. If ghc and hugs uses different versions of the library and some function had its strictness property changed then that might account for the discrepancy.
> > Hugs does no optimisations, while GHC does a truckload, including > > strictness analysis. Some of these optimisations prevent space leaks. > > Though none should change the static semantics. > That was my initial reaction as well, but then I recalled that some of ghc's optimizations actually changes the strictness behavior. The foldr/build transformation for instance can actually change the strictness of a function such that you can actually observe it. So we can't rule out that ghc is doing something it shouldn't be doing. > Post the code. Even if you don't have time to track down the difference, > someone might. > Yep, without the code we're just fumbling in the dark. Cheers, Josef _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
